Court Opinion

ID: 9725841
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 12:15:10.895223+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:20.544910
License: Public Domain

PRENTICE, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent for two reasons:
(1) The trial court committed no error.
(2) If the trial court did err, as determined by the majority, the matter is reviewable, if at all, only as a reserved question. Such an appeal does not anticipate a remand for retrial; and, in this case conditional provisions against double jeopardy proscribe it.
I
Under Issue I, the majority has held that the trial court “had the authority under Ind.R.Tr.P. 50 to grant a judgment on the evidence for the defendant. With this, I am in complete accord. It proceeds, however, to hold that under Moore v. State, (1980) Ind., 403 N.E.2d 335 and Ind.R.Tr.P. 50(C), it is limited to granting a new trial if there be any conflicting evidence. I also agree that under Ind.R.Tr.P. 59(J)(7) the trial court is so limited in civil cases, but it must be remembered that C.R. 16 makes our rules of civil procedure applicable in criminal cases only “insofar as applicable and when not in conflict with any specific rule adopted by this Court for the conduct of criminal procedure.” (Emphasis added)
The provision of Tr.R.P. 59(J)(7) which limits the court to granting a new trial cannot be applied to criminal cases consistent with the double jeopardy proscription of our state and federal constitutions or with the very limited appellate rights of the State under Ind.Code § 35-1-47-2, (Burns 1979). Neither does Tr.R. 50(C) impose limitations upon the trial court’s prerogatives Under Tr.R. 50(A) or (B). Rather, it simply authorizes the exercise of those prerogatives, in a proper case, to fewer than all of the issues or parties.
The holding of Moore v. State, supra, is “that a trial judge, in ruling upon a motion to correct errors, has the duty to examine the evidence to ascertain whether or not there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to support the verdict.” It does not hold that the court is limited to granting a new trial, in a criminal case, as it would be in a civil case. I acknowledge that such would be a reasonable inference to draw from the opinion, absent other considerations which were not before us in that case. However, the remand in Moore, supra, was simply to examine the evidence in ruling upon the motion. We did not say that the state could retry Moore, in the event that the *1119examination revealed either no evidence or insufficient evidence.
I can be comfortable with a policy of permitting the judge to weigh the evidence in ruling upon a motion for judgment on the evidence following the declaration of a mistrial by reason of a deadlocked jury. The State has had its opportunity to obtain a conviction and has failed. Under our practice heretofore, the decision as to whether to subject the defendant to retrial rests with the prosecutor. Unquestionably, in many cases the evidence of guilt is so strong that justice demands that the State have another chance. However, there are other instances when it should not. Who is in a better position to make that decision fairly and objectively, the judge or the prosecutor? I opt for the judge.
II
Regardless of the correctness of the grant, by the trial judge, of a judgment on the evidence, the defendant may not be retried. There is no authorization for a reversal of the judgment following an appeal by the State upon a reserved question.
The right of the State to appeal from an adverse judgment in a criminal case is fixed by Ind.Code § 35-1-47-2 (Burns 1979), which provides:
“35-1-47-2. [9-2304], Appeal by state. — Appeals to the Supreme Court may be taken by the state in the following cases:
“First. From a judgment for the defendant, on quashing or setting aside an indictment or information, or sustaining a plea in abatement.
“Second. From an order or judgment for the defendant, upon his motion for discharge because of delay of his trial not caused by his act, or upon his plea of former jeopardy, presented and ruled upon prior to trial.
„ “Third. From a judgment of the court arresting judgment.
“Fourth. Upon a question reserved by the state.”
Additionally, the right of the State is limited to those instances. State v. Sierp, (1973) 260 Ind. 57, 292 N.E.2d 245, and cases there cited.
“ ‘Generally speaking, under the common law as understood and administered in this country, the state or United States had no right to an appeal or writ of error in criminal cases. It is apprehended that the reason for such a policy was built on the idea that, when the state in its sovereign capacity brought a citizen into its own tribunals, before its own officers, and in obedience to its own processes, and lost, its avenging hand should be stayed except in unusual cases where the power to appeal was expressly conferred.’ 92 A.L.R. 1137.” 260 Ind. at 60, 292 N.E.2d 245.
Insofar as the question of the trial court’s authority to enter judgment on the evidence is concerned, this appeal is authorized by the fourth provision of the statute, “a question reserved by the state.” The majority has gone much further, however, and has held that the State may retry the defendant. It is highly questionable that we should even entertain the issue of the correctness of the judgment, but it is not necessary to answer that question in order to determine the one under consideration.
I can find no case in this state where we have reversed the trial court following an appeal upon a reserved question. Rather, the decisions and opinions in all such cases previously determined have been limited to the conclusion that the trial court did or did not err.
Granting that the State’s right to appeal is limited by statute, it follows that the State’s post appeal rights are also so limited. Our current statute authorizes the retrial of appellee-defendants only in those cases where the appeal taken by the State was from an order or judgment by which the defendant was discharged prior to trial. Ind.Code § 35-1-47-4 (Burns 1979 Replacement).
Under the previous statutes, authority of the State to retry an appellee-defendant was expressly withheld.
“9-2102 [2329]. Appeal by state — Exceptions — Reserved questions — Bills of *1120exceptions. — The prosecuting attorney may except to any decision of the court during the prosecution of any cause, and reserve the point of law for the decision of the Supreme Court. The bill of exceptions must state clearly so much of the record and proceedings as may be necessary for a fair statement of the question reserved. In case of the acquittal of the defendant, the prosecuting attorney may take the reserved case to the Supreme Court upon an appeal at any time within one year [90 days]. The Supreme Court is not authorized to reverse the judgment upon such appeal, but only to pronounce an opinion upon the correctness of the decision of the trial court. The opinion of the Supreme Court shall be binding upon the inferior courts and shall be a uniform rule of decision therein. When the decision of the trial court is decided to be erroneous, the appellee must pay the costs of the appeal. [Acts 1905, ch. 169, § 286, p. 584.]” (Emphasis ours).
The 1955 amendment authorized such retrials only in those cases where the defendant had been discharged prior to trial.
The reversal and remand in this case is premised upon the evidence. For that reason alone it is questionable that the appeal should have been entertained. That question, however, need not be here determined.
In 1879 the trial judge directed a verdict for the defendant at the close of the State’s evidence. The State appealed, insisting upon its right to argue both the law and the facts to the jury. The appeal was dismissed.
“Where the court cannot render a decision upon a matter of law, reserved in a criminal cause, without first passing upon the facts of the case, no appeal can be taken by the state.”
The State v. Overholser, (1879) 69 Ind. 144, 145.
Also in 1879 the State attempted to appeal, as a reserved question, the correctness of an instruction directing a verdict of acquittal. The appeal was dismissed.
“We might look into the evidence, which is contained in the record, and say whether, in our opinion, there was or was not any evidence tending to establish the intent charged, and therefore whether, in our opinion, the charge was or was not correctly given, but in so doing we should be deciding a question of fact, rather than one of law; for the correctness of the charge depends upon the presence or absence of evidence tending to prove the intent charged in the indictment. And the question arises whether an appeal lies to this court in such case.”
The State v. Campbell, (1879) 67 Ind. 302, 303.
The point is, perhaps, explained no better than in State v. Phillips, (1900) 25 Ind.App. 579, 58 N.E. 727, wherein the State appealed from a judgment of acquittal on an agreed statement of facts. In dismissing the appeal, the court said:
“ * * * The assignment is in effect that the court erred in finding appellee not guilty as charged. The opinion which this court is authorized to pronounce on appeals by the State must be upon matter of law and not of fact. The purpose in allowing appeals by the State where a defendant has been acquitted upon trial is not to correct only error in the particular case, but to furnish a rule for the guidance of trial courts in future cases. The State could not be granted a new trial, nor does the above statute authorize this court to review the facts and pronounce an opinion upon them. Should we in such a case look into the evidence and determine whether there was or was not evidence to sustain a conviction such determination would be binding upon no one nor would it furnish any rule for the guidance of trial courts. The error assigned presents for review only a question of fact, and not of law.” 25 Ind.App. at 580, 58 N.E. 727. (Emphasis ours).
It is clear from the foregoing cases that retrials are not anticipated following successful appeals upon reserved questions.
In each of the following recent cases appeals by the State were entertained, following the grant of directed verdicts at the close of the State’s case. Such appeals should have been dismissed because they were controlled by facts and the legal prin-*1121eiple involved was settled and needed no pronouncement. However, the importance of the cases, in the context of the case before us, is that in none was the cause remanded. Rather, the holding in each was simply “Appeal sustained.” State v. Kubiak, (1936) 210 Ind. 479, 4 N.E.2d 193 (appeal sustained), State v. Torphy, (1940) 217 Ind. 383, 388, 28 N.E.2d 70 (appeal sustained), State v. Schroeppel, (1959) 240 Ind. 185, 162 N.E.2d 683 (appeal sustained), State v. Patsel, (1959) 240 Ind. 240, 163 N.E.2d 602 (appeal sustained).
There is no difference between a judgment on the evidence granted before the case is given to the jury and one after-wards, provided the jury has not returned a verdict. Both are dependent upon the judge’s assessment of the evidence. He may make an incorrect decision in either. If the one stands as an acquittal, why should not the other? The state, at most may be entitled to an appeal of a reserved question but not to a reversal and remand for a new trial. Having been in jeopardy and having been acquitted following an opportunity for the state to present its evidence, the double jeopardy provisions of both our state and federal constitutions proscribe retrial of this appellee.