Case Title: Garrison v. State

Citation: 231 N.E.2d 243, 249 Ind. 206

Docket Number: 30,884

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 1967-12-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
249 Ind. 206 (1967)
231 N.E.2d 243
GARRISON
v.
STATE OF INDIANA.
No. 30,884.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
Filed December 4, 1967.
*207 Glenn T. Williams, of Greenfield, for appellant.
John J. Dillon, Attorney General, and Donald R. Ewers, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.
HUNTER, J.
This is an appeal from a conviction for murder in the second degree, pursuant to which appellant, Jerry Wayne Garrison, has been sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant was indicted and tried jointly with a co-defendant, Chester Scharbrough on a charge of first-degree murder. Appellant presents no argument that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. Garrison and Scharbrough both filed motions under Ind. Anno. Stat. § 9-1804 (1956), which statute provides as follows:
The only error argued by appellant in his brief is the overruling of his motion for new trial in that the trial court committed an error of law in failing to grant his motion for a separate trial.
An allegation of error in the overruling of a motion for a separate trial can only be supported by a showing of abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. Johnson v. State (1964), 245 Ind. 295, 198 N.E.2d 373.
Appellant first contends he was prejudiced by the joint trial in that the trial court admitted police officer Robert Patton's testimony of oral statements made by Scharbrough while both defendants were in custody. Scharbrough's statements implicated the appellant and Patton said appellant was present at the time of the alleged statements.
In Kern v. State (1957), 237 Ind. 144, 144 N.E.2d 705, a third person testified, as did Officer Patton in this case, to accusatory statements made against a criminal defendant in the presence of both the third party and the defendant. This Court recognized that such testimony constituted hearsay, even though defendant was present when the statements were made.
The holding of Kern v. State, supra, is clearly applicable to this case. Since the statements made by Scharbrough did not become any part of an admission by appellant, and since Scharbrough, himself, did not testify, the statements of the officer constituted hearsay. Nothwithstanding the hearsay status of the officer's testimony, however, the testimony was material to the State's case.
The soundness of the court's discretion in denying a motion for separate trials is measured by what transpired at the joint trial rather than what was alleged in the motion for separate trials. Marks v. State (1942), 220 Ind. 9, 40 N.E.2d 108. An examination of the transcript in the case at bar reveals that appellant made no objection when the State offered the police officer's testimony as to Scharbrough's statements which implicated defendant. Therefore, appellant cannot be heard to say that the testimony complained of would have been excluded had there been separate trials.
In Sherwood; Sayer v. State (1961), 241 Ind. 215, 170 N.E.2d 656, it was held that the denial of a motion for a separate trial did not constitute an abuse of discretion where a co-defendant entered a plea of guilty and turned State's evidence since such co-defendant's testimony could have come in at a separate trial. It being clear that the evidence complained of here could have come in at a *210 separate trial, if such trial had been granted to defendant, since appellant did not object, the Sherwood case, supra, is controlling.
Appellant also contends that his motion for a separate trial should have been granted due to the alleged existence of an agreement between Scharbrough and representatives of the prosecution providing for leniency to Scharbrough in return for his cooperation. Scharbrough did not plead guilty nor turn State's evidence, but neither did he conduct a vigorous defense. However, if it is not improper to deny a motion for a separate trial when one co-defendant pleads guilty and turns State's evidence, as in Sherwood, supra, it is certainly not error to deny such a motion merely because the movant's co-defendant refuses to conduct a vigorous defense.
Finally, it appears from the record that the appellant's motion for a separate trial was not timely filed. § 9-1804, supra, requires, in part, that:
Appellant's motion for a separate trial was filed with the Clerk of the Hancock Circuit Court on April 17, 1965. The motion states that "trial herein is on the 26th day of April, 1965." Therefore, the motion was untimely upon its face, and was correctly denied.
For all of the foregoing reasons we find no error in the verdict and judgment of the Court below, and said verdict and judgment are therefore affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Arterburn, Lewis and Mote, JJ., concur.
Jackson, C.J., concurs in result.
NOTE.  Reported in 231 N.E.2d 243.