Title: Bryant v. State

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

301 N.E.2d 179 (1973)
Irene BRYANT, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 472S38.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
September 17, 1973.
Richard F. Joyce, Kizer & Neu, Plymouth, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Wesley T. Wilson, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
PRENTICE, Justice.
Defendant (Appellant) was charged with Murder in the First Degree, and in a trial by jury, she was convicted of Murder in the Second Degree. She was sentenced to imprisonment for not less than fifteen (15) nor more than twenty-five (25) years.
Two issues are raised by this appeal:
(1) The denial of the defendant's motion for discharge is affirmed. Although she was not brought to trial until six months and twelve days following the docketing of her case in the Marshall Circuit Court on change of venue, this lapse of time alone is not sufficient to warrant a discharge under Criminal Rule 4. "* * * The six months limitation has been prescribed by this Court as a reasonable time. It is in no sense a constitutional guaranty and is subject to reasonable exceptions, limitations and modifications, as we shall determine necessary to carry out its constitutional purpose." Easton v. State (1972), Ind., 280 N.E.2d 307 at 308.
Defendant was entitled to be brought to trial within six months, and she was not required to take affirmative steps to obtain a trial within that period. However, the record discloses that the trial date of September 20, 1971 was selected on June 11, 1971. This was slightly less than three months after docketing in Marshall County and slightly more than three months prior to the deadline fixed by the rule. Although the record does not reflect the presence of the defendant or her counsel in court at the time of the setting (June 11, 1971), counsel acknowledges that he received notice of the trial date by mail in June. He voiced no objection until after the rule time had expired. He is charged with knowledge, from the date he is notified, that the trial date did not fall within the period prescribed by the rule. His failure to object, at the earliest opportunity thereafter, must be regarded as acquiescence therein and a waiver of the right to discharge for such cause. No valid distinction can be made between this and the rule requiring the complaining party to make timely objection, i.e. in time to allow the alleged error to be avoided or corrected.
(2) In 1957, the defendant stood trial for second degree murder. In that trial, she claimed self defense and testified to a week of continuous drinking by the deceased and to a series of sexual assaults and beatings. She was acquitted. In the trial of the case at bar, she also claimed self defense and testified to sustained drinking and a series of sexual assaults and beatings by the deceased. Upon cross-examination, the defendant was questioned extensively regarding her testimony from the witness stand in the 1957 trial. The following excerpts from the bill of exceptions in the case now before us are material to our determination.
The foregoing cross-examination was permitted, notwithstanding that upon the defendant's prior written motion, the court had issued the following protective order:
The defendant made numerous timely objections and twice moved for a mistrial, asserting that the questions were designed to inform the jury that the defendant had been charged previously with a similar offense, had given a similar story and thereby to prejudice her defense in the eyes of the jury. The State contends that the questions were for the purpose of impeaching the witness' credibility and that it "scrupulously avoided revealing the nature of the trial in 1957," whether it was a criminal or civil action and the defendant's roll therein. It is our opinion, however, that the State, by deliberately calculated innuendo, improperly revealed the prior charges against the defendant.
It is difficult to follow the State's argument in favor of permitting the foregoing cross-examination. It is clear, however, that the defendant's credibility could not have been impeached by the 1957 episode, because she was not convicted. Nor was her prior testimony admissible for the purpose of impeachment by the disclosure of prior inconsistent or contradictory statements, because no foundation had been or could have been laid, inasmuch as the prior statement had no materiality to the matter then in litigation. Collateral matter cannot be made the basis for an impeachment. Miller v. State (1910), 174 Ind. 255, 91 N.E. 930; Stout v. State (1910), 174 Ind. 395, 92 N.E. 161; Barton v. State (1900), 154 Ind. 670, 57 N.E. 515; Blum v. State (1925), 196 Ind. 675, 148 N.E. 193; Miller v. Coulter (1901), 156 Ind. 290, 59 N.E. 853.
The test as to whether a matter is collateral is whether the party seeking to introduce it for purposes of contradiction would be entitled to prove it as a part of his case. 98 C.J.S. Witnesses § 633(b), p. 654. It is obvious that the defendant's testimony in the prior trial had no relevance to the guilt or innocence in the latter one. It is just as obvious, as urged by the defendant, that the State's objective with this line of cross-examination was to do by innuendo what it could not do directly and that was to apprise the jury of the defendant's prior involvement in an incident under circumstances the same or amazingly similar to the one before it. The effect could hardly be other than devastating to the defense.
The question before this Court is not whether the defendant is guilty or innocent but whether she had a fair trial. It was recently said in Shropshire v. State (1972), Ind., 279 N.E.2d 225 that the prosecuting attorney violated his duty to avoid the use *185 of unethical or inflammatory tactics in his attempt to convict the defendant when he cross-examined her in the manner reflected above. "While it is true that when a defendant takes the witness stand the State may cross examine him concerning his credibility, it has always been clear that this attack on credibility is limited. Specifically, `the State is not permitted to inquire into specific acts of misconduct other than prior convictions.'" (Citing Hensley v. State (1971), Ind., 268 N.E.2d 90, 92.) 279 N.E.2d 225 at 227.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed. The cause is remanded, and the trial court is directed to sustain the defendant's motion to correct errors and to grant her a new trial.
DeBRULER, GIVAN and HUNTER, JJ., concur.
ARTERBURN, C.J., dissents.