Court Opinion

ID: 9721696
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:05:38.099247+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:28.171177
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing
Landis, J.
Appellant has filed petition for rehearing contending we did not in our previous opinion1 consider the question of whether the separate indictments filed against appellant and one Hirsch charged a joint crime and if so, whether a judgment convicting appellant and fining him $100 could stand when the charge as to Hirsch was dismissed.
An examination of the petition for coram nobis filed in the trial court makes no mention of an allegedly joint crime being charged against appellant and the co-defendant Hirsch, but it was there contended that the charge against Hirsch was dismissed contrary to an alleged agreement with the prosecutor. The latter contention was disposed of in our previous opinion.
However, in any event we do not believe appellant’s contention is meritorious. The authorities cited by appellant for the proposition that a person jointly charged is to be discharged if a co-defendant has been acquitted of the joint *297crime, are not applicable to cases where the co-defendant is not tried and acquitted, but the charge is only dismissed as to him. A dismissal is not tantamount to an acquittal as it is not an adjudication of the guilt or innocence of the co-defendant. Ordinarily the charge could be re-filed against the co-defendant. The dismissal of the charge as to a co-defendant is not therefore necessarily inconsistent with the conviction of the other defendant and does not ipso facto render such conviction void. See: The State v. Bain (1887), 112 Ind. 335, 14 N. E. 232; Berry v. State (1930), 202 Ind. 294, 305, 165 N. E. 61, 173 N. E. 705, 706, 72 A. L. R. 1177.
The petition for rehearing is overruled.
Achor, C. J., Arterburn, Jackson and Bobbitt, JJ., concur.
Note. — Reported in 176 N. E. 2d 894. Rehearing denied 178 N. E .2d 463.

. Copeland v. State (1961), 242 Ind. 290, 176 N. E. 2d 894.