Court Opinion

ID: 9745428
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:55:58.794649+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:00.552200
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
Draper, C. J.
I am in full agreement with the opinion of the majority as written by Emmert, J. However, I should not like to be understood as approving, in all respects, the manner in which the opinion indicates the hearing on writ of error coram nobis was conducted.
Whether a petitioner shall be returned from his place of confinement for the purpose of the hearing is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, since, in a proper case, the hearing may be on affidavits. State ex rel. Vonderschmidt v. Gerdink (1946), 224 Ind. 42, 64 N. E. 2d 579.
*700However, unless by agreement or for good cause shown the matter is submitted on affidavits despite the presence of the petitioner, I feel that when the petitioner is returned for the hearing, his petition, as verified by himself, should not be received in evidence. In such a case I think his petition should be considered only as tendering issues of fact and should not be considered as proof of the facts alleged. It is merely a self-serving statement which should not be admissible in favor of the petitioner.
With the exceptions above noted, I think that when the petitioner is returned at public expense and is given the ópportunity to testify in support of his petition, the state should only be required to meet the facts sought to be established by the testimony' of the petitioner and whatever other evidence may be offered in support' of his petition, and the state should not be required to meet a multitude of other facts which are alleged in the petition but in support of which no evidence whatever has been adduced.
Note. — Reported in 116 N. E. 2d 98.