Case Title: Brown v. State

Citation: 247 N.E.2d 76, 252 Ind. 161

Docket Number: 1068S175

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 1969-04-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
252 Ind. 161 (1969)
247 N.E.2d 76
BROWN
v.
STATE OF INDIANA.
No. 1068S175.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
Filed April 29, 1969.
*164 Loren H. Kiely, Phillip L. Kiely, of Evansville, for appellant.
John J. Dillon, Attorney General, James H. Voyles, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.
HUNTER, J.
This is an appeal by Samuel Henry Brown from a verdict and judgment of guilty of second degree murder. Trial was by jury in the Vanderburgh Circuit Court in June of 1968. Judgment was entered sentencing the appellant to the Indiana State Prison for life and disfranchisement for a period of seventeen (17) years.
The assignment of error presents the following questions included in appellant's motion for new trial:
The appellant presents no argument on alleged errors one (1) and two (2) above and therefore said asserted errors are waived. Waggoner v. State (1949), 224 Ind. 177, 65 N.E.2d 106.
The appellant contends the trial court erred and abused its discretion in overruling the motion for a change of venue from Vanderburgh County.
As part of the hearing on the petition for a change of venue the appellant placed in evidence five items from Evansville newspapers which are summarized as follows:
It was stipulated that said articles, column, and editorial were duly authenticated copies of said newspapers and were duly circulated throughout Vanderburgh County.
On April 1, 1968, at the hearing on the motion for change of venue there was also evidence presented by Reverend Brown, brother of the appellant, who testified that he was of the opinion the appellant could not receive a fair and impartial trial in Vanderburgh County by reason of said news *167 stories. He also testified that recent acts of vandalism by Negroes on Lincoln Avenue on the previous Thursday "would affect his brother's having a fair and impartial trial in Vanderburgh County."
Samuel Henry Brown, the appellant, a 50 year old Negro also testified that the items contained in the editorial, the daily column, and news stories represented in exhibits 1 through 5 had been read by him and he had determined he could not have a fair and impartial trial in Vanderburgh County because of them. He also testified specifically that exhibit #3 was prejudicial because it stated "but for the police department goof that this probably wouldn't have happened". Also he testified that the various articles detailing his criminal record prior to his trial would be prejudicial to him in Vanderburgh County, whether or not he took the stand to testify.
On re-cross examination by the prosecuting attorney the record also reveals the following questions and answers:
The state did not file any counter-affidavits and did not introduced any evidence to contradict, deny or rebut the defendant's presentation at the hearing.
With specific reference to the five (5) exhibits noted above, the appellant cites the cases of Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966), 384 U.S. 333; Rubenstein v. State (Texas, 1966), 407 S.W.2d 793; Irvin v. Dowd (1961), 366 U.S. 717; and *168 Estes v. State (1965), 381 U.S. 532, as authority for his contention that the trial court committed reversible error in overruling his motion for a change of venue from Vanderburgh County.
To determine the application of said cases, it will be necessary to analyze the record of facts as revealed in the reported cases against the tenor, number and extensiveness of prejudicial contents, if any, in the articles contained in exhibits 1 through 5 in the case at bar. It should be noted that the five items of publicity as revealed by the record were published between February 23, 1968 and March 29, 1968. The appellant's trial began June 25, 1968, almost three months after the last publication.
The appellant in support of his contention of error quotes from Sheppard v. Maxwell, supra, as follows:
The appellant specifically contends that the extensive pre-trial publicity against him made it impossible for him to have a fair and impartial trial.
With regard to Sheppard, supra, the appellee states that "It is incongruous that any comparison could be made concerning the facts of constitutional guarantees in that case with the case at bar." Upon an examination of the Sheppard case, we find that several pages of the opinion were devoted to a discussion of news stories prior to and during the trial, to telecasts by various stations in the Cleveland area, and debates which were staged or broadcast over several radio and television stations tending to pre-judge Sheppard's guilt before and during his trial. A nationally recognized news commentator *169 in a broadcast over a Cleveland station "likened Sheppard to a perjurer and compared the episode to Alger Hiss' confrontation with Whitaker Chambers." The record was replete with quotations from news stories, headlines and editorials including the following: an editorial demanding, "Why isn't Sam Sheppard in jail ... quit stalling  bring him in," and a characterization of Sheppard as "The most unusual murder suspect ever seen around these parts." One article said that "Except for some superficial questioning during Coroner Sam Gerber's inquest, has been scotfree of any official grilling..." It asserted further that he was "surrounded by an iron guard of protection and concealment." Headlines announced inter alia that "Doctor evidence is ready for jury," "Corrigan tactics stall case," "Sheppard gay set is revealed by Houk," "Blood is found in garage," "New murder evidence is found police said," "But who will speak for Marilyn?," and "Sam called a `Jekyll-hyde' by Marilyn, cousin to testify." One story related that the "Prosecutor has a `bombshell witness' who will testify to Dr. Sam's display of fiery temper, countering the defense claim that the defendant is a gentle physician with an even disposition." There were further quotes that Sheppard was a "bald faced liar" attributed to a police captain.
The above recital from the report of the Sheppard case is a very cursory summation of a part of the publicity surrounding the trial and clearly demonstrates that that case is inapplicable to the facts in the case at bar. The same conclusion may be made with reference to Estes v. State, supra, and Rubenstein v. State, supra.
In the case of Irvin v. Dowd, supra, also cited by the appellant, we find the following summation of the facts reported:
The court speaking through Justice Clark stated as a summary conclusion to the above recited facts that:
Further the opinion sets forth:
The appellee states in its brief that the degree of publicity received by the defendant in Irvin was substantially greater *172 than that received by appellant in the case at bar. In Irvin there were 46 exhibits which petitioner attached to his motion which indicated the barrage of newspaper headlines, articles, cartoons and pictures published in the community concerning the case. The town radio and T.V. stations also carried extensive newscasts about the case prior to and during the trial of the case. In the case at bar appellant only presented five exhibits at his hearing on his motion for change of venue along with testimony by himself and his brother.
Another distinguishing factor in Irvin was that two-thirds of the prospective members of the jury revealed on voir dire that they possessed a belief in the defendant's guilt. The Supreme Court of the United States thus felt that the partiality and prejudice which was demonstrated by the defendant on this appeal violated constitutional proscriptions.
Appellant in this case filed a written motion to quash and strike the jury and to challenge the array of Petit Jurors. The Court reserved its ruling until after the jurors were voir dired and then denied appellant's motion. The transcript of the proceedings does not contain the questions and answers on voir dire; moreover, the appellant did not raise the question of prejudice among the jury after their selection, and no exception was noted nor presented in appellant's brief challenging such ruling as was done in Irvin v. Dowd, supra. We hold that Irvin is not controlling of the issue in the case at bar.
We now consider the error asserted on the denial of the change of venue from the county in the case at bar. Suffice it to say in this regard, we believe it is necessary to the determination of the right to said change of venue for the trial court to consider and weigh all factors and rights surrounding the case. The right of the news media to fairly and accurately report the news; the right of the defendant to a fair trial before an impartial *173 tribunal free of the influence of generated prejudice and inflamed passion in the community; and the right of the citizens to fully comprehend and analyze the portent and direction of the administration of our court system are elements necessary to the attainment of justice. If any one of the rights fall, the rest also will surely fall, and the term "justice" will become hollow and meaningless in our constitutional system. Upon the judiciary devolves the duty to maintain, as well as human agency can, the fine and essential balance within and between such tri-partite rights, for such a harmonious weighting is necessary to the preservation of "justice under the law".
We have held that it is within the sound discretion of the trial court to determine the credibility of an application for a change of venue from the county in a criminal case. We have also held that such an application, uncontroverted by the state, only establishes a prima facie basis for the granting of the application, and that such application should not be arbitrarily denied without affording the defendant an opportunity to bolster the credibility of such with supporting testimony. Hanrahan v. State (1968), 251 Ind. 356, 241 N.E.2d 143. In the instant case a hearing was had. We hold that it was within the discretion of the trial court to weigh the evidence comprised of both documentary and oral testimony and determine its credibility in light of the purpose sought to be obtained by said application. In such hearing the trial court had the right to weigh the content of the exhibits and determine their effect on the "public attitude" toward the defendant. Certainly the publicity could not be characterized as building "a huge wave of passion" (Sheppard); neither was it "a build up of prejudice ... clear and convincing" (Irvin). Also, the court in judging the credibility of the appellant and his brother in their supporting testimony had the right and duty to weigh their evidence and take into account their interest in the outcome of the matter then before the court for adjudication.
*174 We therefore hold that the trial court did not exceed its discretion in the denial of appellant's application for a change of venue from Vanderburgh County as alleged in specification #3 of the motion for a new trial.
Specifications 4 and 5 of motion for new trial are best grouped together for consideration.
The appellant contends that the trial court erred in overruling the objections of the defendant to the introduction and admission into evidence State's exhibit #3, being a photograph of the interior of the grocery store where the killing occurred. This black and white photograph disclosed a large pool of the victim's blood on the floor. This exhibit was shown and passed among the jury for viewing and examination. The appellant cites Kiefer v. State (1958), 239 Ind. 103, 114, 153 N.E.2d 899 to support his contention.
This court in Hawkins v. State (1941), 219 Ind. 116, 127, 37 N.E.2d 79 stated:
Dean Wigmore states the rule:
Exhibit #3 shows where the deceased was lying after his struggle with the defendant as well as the interior of the New Gay Way Market. The pictorial depiction was supported by the testimony of Ronald Hewitt upon direct examination.
Furthermore, the Keifer case, relied on by the appellant, has not been regarded by this court as a persuasive precedent.
Wilson v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 680, 685, 221 N.E.2d 347
We therefore hold the trial court committed no error in the admission of state's exhibit #3 in evidence, and in overruling specification #4 of appellant's motion for new trial.
We now direct our attention to specification #5, which asserted an error of law in trial court's overruling of the appellant's objection to the admission into evidence of exhibits #8 and #9, said exhibits being color photographs of part of the nude body of the victim, Amiel Lewis Culver, taken in the hospital approximately two hours after the killing. Said exhibits depicted the place of entrance of the gunshot wound *176 in the throat and the exit of the gunshot wound in the back together with some discoloration about the neck.
The appellant objected to the introduction of said exhibits upon the grounds that the photographs showed the body had been probed by some kind of instrument inserted into the gunshot wound and therefore that the body was not in the same condition as it was at the time of the death, and for the further reason that the exhibits are not relevant or material to the issues involved in the trial. The appellant contends that this was prejudicial to the defendant and inflamed the jury, again citing Kiefer v. State, supra.
The rule as stated in 2 Wharton's Criminal Evidence, 12th ed., § 687, at pages 658-659 is:
Underhill's Criminal Evidence, 5th ed., § 117, states that "photographs which go to illustrate any fact or shed light on an issue, or are relevant to describe person, place or thing involved, are admissible." (p. 213) They "are not inadmissible merely because shocking, horrible or tending to arouse passion or prejudice." (p. 222) "A photograph serving only, or primarily, to arouse passion or prejudice, will not be received, although the fact that it is not essential to the state's case will not necessarily exclude it." (p. 80, 1968 Supp.)
Relevant to said exhibits Edward Saulsberry, deputy coroner of Vanderburgh County, testified that the photographs were true and correct representations both front and back as shown by said exhibits number 8 indicating the entrance wound and number 9 representing the exit wound in the lower back of Amiel Lewis Culver. He also testified the discoloration or marks about the neck were the result of a tracheaectomy *177 performed to help this man breathe before he died. Presumably, the opening for the tracheaectomy was in the identical location of the entrance of the gunshot wound. The appellant attempts to equate this photograph with the photograph discussed in Kiefer v. State, supra. We find there is little support for this position, for in the Kiefer photograph it showed the hands of the surgeon in the body of the victim while performing an autopsy. We therefore hold that the trial court committed no reversible error in admitting state's exhibits number 8 and 9 in the evidence in the case at bar; therefore, specification #5 of the appellant's motion for new trial is without merit, and the trial court committed no error in overruling the same.
We will group and consider specifications #6 and #8 of the motion for a new trial together as both contentions of error are challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. More specifically, asserted error #6 urges the proposition that the state failed to prove malice and purpose. Therefore the appellant's motions for a directed verdict at the close of the state's case-in-chief and at the conclusion of all the evidence should have been granted.
Murder in the second degree is defined by statute as follows:
Thus defined the crime of second degree murder embraces the following essential elements:
1. The killing of a human being.
2. The accompaniment of such killing with malice and purpose. See Helms v. State (1968), *178 251 Ind. 335, 241 N.E.2d 244; Dickinson v. State (1944), 222 Ind. 551, 55 N.E.2d 325; Landreth v. State (1930), 201 Ind. 691, 171 N.E. 192; Brooks v. State (1883), 90 Ind. 428.
In Maxey v. State (1969), 251 Ind. 645, 244 N.E.2d 650, 657, we stated:
The elements of malice and purpose need not be proved by direct evidence, but may be inferred from the circumstances of the case. Maxey v. State, supra; Helms v. State, supra; Sparks v. State (1964), 245 Ind. 245, 195 N.E.2d 469, rehearing granted on other grounds, 245 Ind. 250, 196 N.E.2d 748; Miller v. State (1962), 242 Ind. 678, 181 N.E.2d 633.
A conviction will be sustained if there is substantial evidence of probative value to sustain each material element of the crime charged. When the question of the sufficiency of the evidence is raised this court will consider that evidence most favorable to the state together with all inferences to be drawn therefrom. Harris v. State (1968), 249 Ind. 681, 231 N.E.2d 800; Coach v. State (1968), 250 Ind. 226, 235 N.E.2d 493.
The record of the testimony by Sandra Hedges, the daughter of the deceased, and Ronald Hewitt indicates that both of them heard shots fired and both saw the appellant and the deceased struggling. The appellant had a .32 caliber pistol in his hand, and the deceased was shot and killed with said pistol. Ronald Hewitt, who came to the aid of the deceased during the struggle, was also shot with the same pistol. Thus, there was sufficient evidence from which reasonable inferences could be drawn to establish the element of malice under the case law hereinabove set forth. *179 Moreover, the law has always stated that an individual intends the natural and probable consequences of his acts and such intent implies purpose by operation of law. Newport v. State (1894), 140 Ind. 299, 39 N.E. 926; Pitts v. State (1939), 216 Ind. 168, 23 N.E.2d 673.
Consequently, we hold that no error was committed by the trial court in refusing to grant the appellant's motions for directed verdicts or in overruling of specification #6 of appellant's motion for new trial.
Specification #8 of the motion for new trial asserts error based upon the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict of second degree murder and judgment thereon. The appellant in his brief has failed to make an argument challenging the sufficiency of the evidence upon any grounds other than its insufficiency to sustain the essential elements of malice and purpose as heretofore discussed. Therefore, we do not deem it necessary to detail a summary of all the evidence in the case. Suffice it to say the record reveals there was substantial evidence of probative value to sustain the verdict of the jury as regards the requisite malice and purposefulness. We hold that the trial court committed no error in overruling specification #8 of the appellant's motion for new trial.
Under specification #7, the appellant contends that the verdict of the jury and judgment of the trial court was contrary to law. The sole assertion thereunder is that the jury committed error by returning a verdict which included a finding that the appellant "... be imprisoned in the state's prison during life." The appellant under specification #7 contends that the "... jury had no right or authority to consider the potential punishment, since punishment for second degree murder has been determined by the legislature, ..." and therefore that the verdict was contrary to law, citing in support *180 thereof Rowe v. State (1968), 250 Ind. 547, 237 N.E.2d 576. In Rowe, this court stated that it was improper for the prosecuting attorney in his final argument to the jury to question the propriety of a verdict of manslaughter instead of second degree murder for the reason that the offender would be paroled in approximately two years. Therein, we held that such remarks were improper because it was the province of the jury only to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant. The matter of parole as authorized by a separate statute and rules and regulation of the Department of Correction was solely within the province of the executive department as implemented by statute. In the case at bar, there is no indication that the jury invaded the province of the executive department. Therefore, Rowe has no applicability to the case at bar, and we so hold. Moreover, the jury in handing down their verdict merely followed the language of Ind. Ann. Stat. § 10-3404 (1956 Repl.) which states:
The two following sections Ind. Ann. Stat. (1956 Repl.) § 9-1820 and 9-1821 refer to (1) indeterminate sentences, for felonies other than for murder, to the Indiana Reformatory, and, (2) to indeterminate sentences to the Indiana State Prison, on all felonies except treason and murder, respectively. Therefore, since the appellant was found guilty of murder in the second degree the form of the jury verdict was proper.
The trial court committed no error in overruling specification #7 of appellant's motion for new trial.
*181 For all the foregoing reasons, we hold that the appellant has failed to demonstrate any reversible error, and the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
DeBruler, C.J., Arterburn and Givan, JJ., concur.
Jackson, J., dissents with opinion.
JACKSON, J.
I dissent from the majority opinion on the narrow ground that the State of Indiana did not file any counter affidavit or affidavits to appellant's Motion for Change of Venue from the County, nor did the State of Indiana offer evidence in rebuttal or repudiation of the testimony adduced in appellant's behalf in support of his motion.
There is no dispute as to the fact that testimony was given and heard in support of appellant's Motion for Change of Venue from the County. There is no dispute as to the fact that the State offered no evidence to contradict or offset such evidence.
The failure of the State to contradict the affidavit or affidavits and the evidence in support of the Motion for Change of Venue, in my opinion, constitutes an admission of the truth thereof.
The mere fact that the court after the hearing held that the defendant was not entitled to a change of venue from the county does not and can not change that admission. The record discloses that two witnesses testified on behalf of the appellant and that five exhibits [Numbers (1) to (5) inclusive] were introduced in support of appellant's motion. Under the circumstances here present it is my opinion the denial of the Motion for Change of Venue constituted an abuse of discretion.
*182 The judgment should be reversed and remanded to the trial court with instructions to grant appellant's Motion for Change of Venue from the County.
NOTE.  Reported in 247 N.E.2d 76.