Opinion ID: 1980248
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: point seven (7).

Text: 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  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: Whoever, purposely and maliciously, but without premeditation, kills any human being, is guilty of murder in the second degree, and on conviction, shall be imprisoned in the state prison during life (our emphasis). Ind. Ann. Stat. § 9-1819 (1956 Repl.) provides: When the defendant is found guilty the jury, except in the cases provided for, in the next three (two) sections, must state, in the verdict the amount of fine and punishment to be inflicted ... 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.  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.