Case Name: Barnes v. State of Indiana
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1971-02-08
Citations: 255 Ind. 674
Docket Number: No. 570S109
Parties: Barnes v. State of Indiana.
Judges: Givan and Hunter, JJ., concur; DeBruler, J., concurs in result ; Prentice, J., concurs in part—dissents in part.
Reporter: Indiana Reports
Volume: 255
Pages: 674–677

Head Matter:
Barnes v. State of Indiana.
[No. 570S109.
Filed February 8, 1971.
Rehearing denied March 24, 1971.]
Palmer K. Ward, of Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Attorney General, William F. Thompson, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Opinion:
Arterburn, C.J.
This is an appeal from the Marion Criminal Court, Division 2, where appellant was tried before Judge Saul I. Rabb without the intervention of a jury. The appellant was found guilty as charged of the crimes of first degree burglary and sodomy.
Evidence introduced at the trial indicates that on August 10, 1969, at about 2:30 a.m., Mrs. Janet Ballard was awakened when a man put his hand upon her neck and threatened her with a knife and said: "Don't move and don't scream." Mrs. Ballard was then advised that her assailant wanted to engage in an act of sexual intercourse with her and also that he wanted her to commit an act of sodomy upon him. Mrs. Ballard was told "Be quiet" on more than one instance and was also told: "Don't move the pillow until I heard the door click." Mrs. Ballard estimated that the whole occurrence lasted about one-half hour and stated that she heard the defendant talking the whole time.
Appellant argues on this appeal that the trial court erred in admitting certain testimony concerning a pair of shoes which was found in the defendant's apartment. The court refused to admit this pair of shoes into evidence but there was testimony concerning them which connected the defendant to the crime. The defendant, however, failed to object to the testimony and thus failed to preserve this issue for review. This Court has reiterated on many occasions that objections not made in the trial court cannot be urged on appeal, Widmer v. Sweeney et al. (1955), 234 Ind. 263, 124 N. E. 2d 385; Eiffe v. State (1948), 226 Ind. 57, 77 N. E. 2d 750; Meadows v. Thomas (1918), 187 Ind. 216, 118 N. E. 811; Seisler v. Smith et al. (1897), 150 Ind. 88, 46 N. E. 993.
It is next contended that the judgment of the trial court is not sustained by sufficient evidence regarding the identification of the defendant. In this case, the defendant was identified by his voice. This Court has recognized the validity of voice identification in criminal prosecutions. Allison v. State (1960), 240 Ind. 556, 166 N. E. 2d 171; Deal v. The State (1895), 140 Ind. 354, 39 N. E. 930. See also 29 Am. Jur. 2d, Evidence § 368 where it is stated: "Since an early period, witnesses' testimony of identification of a person by having heard his voice has been regarded as legitimate and competent to establish identity in both criminal and civil cases."
The defendant was also identified at the time of his arrest by a very distinctive cologne that he was wearing. Additional evidence regarding the identity of the defendant involved a footprint outside the victim's window which was matched by a police officer with a tennis shoe discovered in the defendant's apartment. We accordingly find that there was sufficient identification of the defendant.
Judgment affirmed.
Givan and Hunter, JJ., concur; DeBruler, J., concurs in result ; Prentice, J., concurs in part—dissents in part.