Court Opinion

ID: 9740008
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:25:31.429415+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:15.358842
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing
Landis, J.
On rehearing appellant has again contended the child for whom a paternity action is brought is not an interested person and that the court erred in overruling appellant’s motion to exclude said child at all times from the courtroom.
We believe the authorities and discussion in our earlier opinion require the conclusion that the child was an interested person within the statute and as the statute provides the court may admit interested persons the court committed no error in admitting the child in this case. The record here discloses the child was absent from the hearing during much of the proceedings and no attempt has here been made by appellant to show an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court with reference to the presence of the child at a specified distance from the jury so as to have prejudiced appellant in light of previous decisions of this State.1 Furthermore, as stated in the previous opinion, the jury were instructed not to take into consid*197eration the appearance of the child or draw inferences therefrom.
No contention has been made that the court erred in failing to maintain proper order and decorum in the courtroom.
We must conclude no error on the part of the trial court has been demonstrated.
Petition for rehearing denied.
Arterburn, C. J., and Achor, J., concur.
Jackson, J., concurs in result.
Myers, J., dissents.
Note. — Reported in 202 N. E. 2d 745. Rehearing denied in 204 N. E. 2d 219.

. Adams v. State, ex rel. (1925, 197 Ind. 80, 149 N. E. 886; LaMatt v. The State, ex rel. Lucas (1891), 128 Ind. 123, 27 N. E. 346.