Case Title: Smith v. State

Citation: 211 N.E.2d 186, 247 Ind. 126

Docket Number: 30,791

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 1965-11-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
247 Ind. 126 (1965)
211 N.E.2d 186
SMITH
v.
STATE OF INDIANA.
No. 30,791.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
Filed November 4, 1965.
Rehearing denied December 21, 1965.
*127 Virgil J. McCarty, Thomas J. O'Connor, and McCarty & O'Connor, of Brookville, for appellant.
John J. Dillon, Attorney General, and Raymond I. Klagiss, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.
ARTERBURN, J.
The appellant was charged in four counts with:
He was found not guilty on all counts except the fourth (resisting arrest), under which he was found guilty of "simple assault". The jury's verdict was as follows:
Without making any objection at the time of the return of the verdict as to any alleged defect therein, the appellant thereafter filed a motion to modify the judgment on the ground that the jury should have fixed the place of imprisonment either in the county jail or in the Indiana State Farm. The judgment of the court following the verdict provided for the imprisonment at the Indiana State Farm.
Burns' Ind. Stat. Anno. § 10-402 (1956 Repl.) fixing the penalty for an assault, states that upon conviction such person
Burns' Ind. Stat. Anno. § 9-1819 (1956 Repl.) provides in part:
This section is applicable to charges and convictions under the assault statute. Appellant argues that under the above section it was the duty of the jury and not the court to fix the imprisonment in the Indiana State Farm or the county jail. In our opinion, appellant's contention that the verdict fixed by the jury was defective is clearly erroneous. The place of confinement is fixed by the statute and the court, in entering the judgment, had no discretion, but was compelled under the statute, to fix the imprisonment at the Indiana State Farm.
Burns' Ind. Stat. Anno. § 13-507 (1956 Repl.) in part provides:
We have held in Banks v. State (1919), 188 Ind. 353, 355, 123 N.E. 691, 692, that
To the same effect is Graves v. State (1921), 191 Ind. 197, 132 N.E. 369, where the jury's verdict provided imprisonment for 90 days "in the county jail." The law is settled that the place of imprisonment of an individual convicted of a violation of a provision of the criminal law is determined by the trial judge and not the jury, pursuant to the mandatory or discretionary provisions of the statute. When the imprisonment is to be more than 60 days and the individual is above the commitment age of the Indiana Boys' School and the statute does not provide for imprisonment in a state prison or reformatory, the trial judge must commit the convicted individual to the Indiana State Farm.
The appellant, however, states that Burns' Ind. Stat. Anno. § 9-1819 (1956 Repl.) [Acts 1927, ch. 200, § 1, p. 574], which provides that the jury shall fix the punishment in assault cases, repeals Burns' Ind. Stat. Anno. § 13-507 (1956 Repl.) [Acts 1913, ch. 236, § 8, p. 660 as amended by Acts 1919, ch. 33, § 1, *130 P. 81 and Acts 1931, ch. 77 § 1, p. 224], which provides for confinement in the state farm where the imprisonment fixed is more than 60 days.
Upon an examination of these two statutes, we find no conflict sufficient to create any implied repeal of the old statute. The 1927 Act did not specifically repeal any provision of the 1913 Act. The court cannot indulge in presumptions of repeal by implication unless there is an irreconcilable conflict in the two statutes, and we find no such inconsistency exists in this case.
Furthermore, the Act of 1913, supra, was amended in 1931 by restoring the 60 day period which in 1919 had been fixed at 30 days. If there were any repeal by implication, the amendment of 1931 would prevail over the Act of 1927. Shewmaker v. State (1956), 236 Ind. 49, 138 N.E.2d 290.
We further point out in this case that in reality the judgment was in proper form. It was the verdict which the appellant attacks in this case as being defective. If the appellant felt the verdict of the jury was not in proper form, he may not stand idly by and make no objections thereto and permit the jury to be discharged, and then, after the jury has separated finally and it is too late to correct or amend the verdict, attack the verdict as defective. One may not fail to make objections during the trial at the proper time when the alleged error is revealed, and later, after it is too late to remedy such alleged error, predicate error thereon. Such conduct constitutes a waiver, since judicial proceedings must be conducted in an orderly fashion such that objectionable errors may be remedied promptly before it is too late. A defective verdict may not be attacked for the first time through a motion to correct a judgment, which is correct on its face. Lane v. Hobbs (1965), 246 Ind. 640, 208 N.E.2d 182.
The trial court in this case, upon rendering judgment, directed the sheriff to confiscate the shotgun used by the appellant and destroy the same. It is pointed out in the briefs that the only statute under which such procedure is authorized *131 is Burns' Ind. Stat. Anno. § 10-4706 (1965 Supp.), which provides:
The appellant was not charged under a statute for carrying concealed weapons, and no other law is pointed out to us under which the weapon could be confiscated, as in this case. We therefore find that the court erroneously made an order of confiscation, and it is directed to rescind such order and that part of the judgment directing the confiscation of the gun described.
The judgment of the trial court is otherwise affirmed.
Myers, and Landis, JJ., concur. Jackson, C.J., concurs in result with separate opinion to follow. Achor, J., not participating.
JACKSON, C.J.
I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion, but wish to point out that the majority opinion is predicated on an erroneous conclusion of law.
The "Motion to Modify Judgment" filed by the appellant, omitting heading, formal parts and signature of appellant, reads as follows:
Appellant's motion would be governed by the provision of Rule 2-40B of this court.
I am in agreement with the conclusions of the majority opinion that the Act of 1927, ch. 200, § 1, p. 574, § 9-1819, Burns' 1956 Replacement did not repeal § 13-507 Burns' 1956 Replacement, and their reasoning and citations in support thereof.
I disagree with the conclusions stated in the majority opinion immediately above their citation of Lane v. Hobbs (1965), 246 Ind. 640, 208 N.E.2d 182, for the reason that the cited case does not support such conclusions. Such conclusions read:
*136 In truth and in fact the verdict of the jury under the reasoning expressed in the majority and this separate opinion is correct; it is the judgment of the court that is in part incorrect. The court, in my opinion, under the 1931 Amendment to § 13-507, Burns' 1956 Replacement, would on the verdict herein rendered be obligated by the terms of such statute to require the 90 day sentence to be served at the Indiana State Farm and had the jury included in its verdict a statement to the effect that the sentence of 90 days was to be served in the County Jail it would have been erroneous and the statute would prevail; on the other hand had the verdict directed that the 90 days be served at the State Farm such directive would have been redundant or surplusage because again the statute, § 13-507, Burns', 1956 Replacement, supra, would prevail.
The doctrine of waiver attempted to be applied here in reliance on the Hobbs case, supra, is not in anywise applicable or appropriate. The doctrine of waiver is, in my opinion, not often available to the State, as it is in direct conflict with the constitutional rights of a defendant to stand mute and require the State to prove every element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt. In the case at bar the motion to modify the judgment was in compliance with Rule 2-40B of this Court, eminently proper, and the only way in which the defective judgment could be reached as the judgment rendered by the court, after the jury verdict, was not in compliance with the verdict, but merely represented the personal bias, prejudice and illegal attempt of the court to impose its will on the appellant over and above the verdict of the jury and contrary to any statutory authority. Evans v. The State (1898), 150 Ind. 651, 50 N.E. 820.
I concur in that part of the majority opinion directing the court to correct and rescind that part of the judgment and order directing the confiscation of the gun described therein.
NOTE.  Reported in 211 N.E.2d 186.