Court Opinion

ID: 9704392
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:33:59.444998+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:01.759243
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion.
Jackson, J.
I am not in agreement with the result reached by the majority opinion herein and dissent thereto.
As pointed out in the majority opinion, the evidence presented at the trial generally was sufficient to establish the commission of the crime of first degree burglary by the appellant. Appellant was charged, I should say overcharged, with the crime of first degree burglary, and I agree with the majority opinion to the extent that technically the state produced sufficient evidence of probative value to establish the commission of that crime.
My disagreement with the majority opinion and my dissent herein is predicated on the theory that we, as the court of last resort in the state, are expected to and should dispense even handed justice. In applying the letter of the law we should not and can not ignore the spirit of the law. By constitutional mandate, Article 1, Section 16, the constitution of the State of Indiana directs that “... all penalties shall be proportioned to the nature of the offense.” In the case at bar, it is my opinion that the “nature” of appellant’s conduct, which is the constitutional basis for his punishment, has never been considered. The most cursory consideration of this case reveals the gross overcharging of a criminal offense.
*324The severe sentence in first degree burglarly cases is predicated on the theory that one who breaks into a place of human habitation is in position to inflict personal injury upon the occupants thereof. In the case at bar the appellant is a young man, slow in comprehension and understanding, having only a third grade education completed at age of fourteen. The burglary of which he was convicted occurred in the day time, while the occupant of the residence was out of town and whose absence from her home was known by the defendant before the taking of the record player. Appellant has a wife and child that someone must support, either he or the public through a welfare agency. Appellant, in spite of his lack of schooling and slow comprehension is able to earn $140.00 per week as a cement worker. It seems to me that under all the circumstances present here society would be better served and justice more evenly applied by the imposition of a lesser sentence rather than the one embraced in the charge of which appellant stands convicted. The cost to the public in keeping appellant in a penal institution is far in excess of the damage done society by the commission of this crime.
While I have in the past objected to, and dissented in certain cases to the use thereof, there is in effect in this state a statute providing for the modification by this Court of the judgment appealed from, thus avoiding the expense and delay of a new trial.
Burns’ Sec. 9-2321 provides:
“Power of court on appeal — Remand to trial court. — On appeal, the court may reverse, modify or affirm the judgment appealed from, and may, if necessary or proper, order a new trial. In any case, the cause must be at once remanded to the trial court, with proper instructions, and the opinion of the court shall also be immediately certified to the trial court.”
*325Supreme Court Rule 2-40B; Richie v. State (1963), 243 Ind. 614, 189 N.E. 2d 575; Shoemaker v. Dowd, Warden (1953) 232 Ind. 602, 115 N.E. 2d 443; Marks v. State (1942), 220 Ind. 9, 40 N.E. 2d 108; Mann v. State (1933), 205 Ind. 491, 186 N.E. 283.
In the case at bar appellant should have been found guilty of no more than house breaking in daytime to steal as defined in Burns’ Sec. 10-705, which reads as follows:
“House breaking in daytime to steal. — Whoever, in the daytime, breaks and enters into any dwelling-house, kitchen, smoke house, out-house, shop, office, storehouse, warehouse, mill, distillery, pottery, factory, barn, stable, schoolhouse, church, meeting-house or building used for the purpose of religious worship, watercraft, car-factory, freight house, station-house, depot, railroad car, interurban or streetcar, with intent to commit the crime of larceny, shall, on conviction, be imprisoned in the county jail not less than ten (10) days nor more than six (6) months, or in the state prison not less than one (1) year nor more than fourteen (14) years.”
Under the circumstances disclosed by the record in the case at bar a sufficient penalty for the crime so committed would have been imprisonment in the county jail for six months. It appearing from the record herein that appellant was sentenced July 21, 1967, to the Indiana Reformatory for not less than ten (10) nor more than twenty (20) years and is now incarcerated therein, the trial court should be now hereby directed to modify the judgment of conviction by reducing it to conviction of house breaking in the daytime to steal. The sentence imposed thereunder should be that the defendant be imprisoned in the county jail of Marion County for no more than six months and by virtue of the fact that appellant has already served more than six months in the Indiana Reformatory and is still incarcerated there, he should be given credit for such six months sentence and the trial court should be directed to order said defendant-appellant returned to the Marion Criminal Court, Division Two, where sentence should be imposed in conformity to this opinion and *326said defendant-appellant thereupon discharged immediately, without delay, and the Clerk of this Court should be ordered to immediately certify this opinion to the Marion Criminal Court, Division Two.
Note.—Reported in 247 N. E. 2d 501.