Case Title: Garvin v. State

Citation: 255 Ind. 215, 263 N.E.2d 371

Docket Number: 270S20

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 1970-11-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
255 Ind. 215 (1970)
263 N.E.2d 371
GARVIN
v.
STATE OF INDIANA.
No. 270S20.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
Filed November 10, 1970.
*216 Phillips B. Johnson, of Versailles, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Attorney General, Kenneth M. McDermott, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.
No petition for rehearing filed.
DEBRULER, J.
Appellant was indicted in the Ripley Circuit Court for the crime of accessory after the fact of commission of robbery while armed with a deadly weapon, in violation of Acts 1941, ch. 148, § 6, Burns Ind. Stat. Ann. § 10-4101, and Acts 1905, ch. 124, § 1, Burns Ind. Stat. Ann. § 9-103. Appellant was convicted in a trial by jury and sentenced to ten (10) years in prison.
Appellant's sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in giving on its own motion Instruction No. F-22, which reads as follows:
*217 Appellant argues that the instruction invades the province of the jury with regard to determining the credibility of the witnesses.
It is well established in Indiana that the jury is the sole judge of the credibility of all the witnesses and an instruction is erroneous as invading the province of the jury to the extent that the trial court would be intimating his opinion of the credibility of any witness or the weight to be given to their testimony. Pritchard v. State (1967), 248 Ind. 566, 230 N.E.2d 416; McDonough v. State (1961), 242 Ind. 376, 175 N.E.2d 418; Bohan v. State (1942), 194 Ind. 227, 141 N.E. 323.
It is equally well established that when a defendant testifies in his own defense his testimony must be treated by the court and jury in the same manner as is the testimony of the other witnesses in the case. McDonough v. State, supra; Alder v. State (1958), 239 Ind. 68, 154 N.E.2d 716; Swanson v. State (1943), 222 Ind. 217, 52 N.E.2d 616; Metzger v. State (1938), 214 Ind. 113, 13 N.E.2d 519; Scheerer v. State (1925), 197 Ind. 155, 149 N.E. 892; Kell v. State (1924), 194 Ind. 374, 142 N.E. 865. Therefore an instruction concerning the credibility of the defendant or the weight to be given his testimony is erroneous to the extent it tends to single out the defendant and to lead the jury to judge his credibility in a different manner than the way they would judge the credibility of the witnesses.
Appellant argues that the following portion of F-22 violates that principle:
We agree with appellant. The quoted part of F-22 is erroneous in that it singles out appellant's testimony and tells the jury that that testimony was to be judged in the same *218 manner as the testimony of the other witnesses, with one exception, namely, the jury was to specially consider appellant's unique interest in the result of the case. In effect the jury was told that appellant's testimony was not to be treated in the same manner as the testimony of other witnesses but was to be weighted by a different and harsher rule.
Our position is fully supported by the past decisions on this point. In Davis v. State (1936), 210 Ind. 550, 2 N.E.2d 983, the following instruction was given:
In holding this instruction erroneous this Court said:
In Alder v. State, supra, the trial court gave the following instruction No. 12:
This Court, in holding that instruction erroneous said:
In Scheerer v. State, supra, this Court held:
In Swanson v. State, supra, the following instruction was given:
In holding that instruction erroneous, this Court said:
In Metzger v. State, supra, the trial court gave Instruction No. 11, which read:
This Court approved that instruction on the ground that the instruction did not tell the jury that it should scrutinize the defendant's testimony in any manner different from that of any other witness. See also Adams v. State (1923), 194 Ind. 512, 141 N.E. 460.
Appellee cites Bowman v. State (1934), 207 Ind. 358, 192 N.E. 755, and McIntosh v. State (1898), 151 Ind. 251, 51 N.E. 354, in support of the trial court giving Instruction F-22 in this case. The instruction approved in Bowman was identical with one later held erroneous in Swanson v. State, supra. Although Bowman and McIntosh were not expressly overruled, the instructions at issue therein have been thoroughly overruled, the instructions at issue therein have been thoroughly disapproved by this Court.
Appellee argues that F-22 is not erroneous when read in combination with Instructions No. P-12 and No. F-23. Instruction P-12 was a preliminary instruction concerning the the credibility of witnesses in general and F-23 was a final instruction concerning the jury's duty to resolve reasonable *222 doubts in appellant's favor. Those two instructions themselves are not objectionable. However, the giving of those two instructions does not cure the giving of the erroneous Instruction No. F-22. Steinbarger v. State (1948), 226 Ind. 598, 82 N.E.2d 519; Swanson v. State, supra. In the latter case, this Court reversed the conviction because of an erroneous instruction, saying:
Judgment reversed.
Hunter, C.J., Arterburn and Givan, JJ., concur; Jackson, J., not participating.
NOTE.  Reported in 263 N.E.2d 371.