Court Opinion

ID: 9517944
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:37:53.486377+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:26:13.194082
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
DeBruler, J.
The majority misreads the record in this case. No objection or motion to suppress was directed by defense counsel during the original trial to the admission of the items of evidence which appellant claims were constitutionally inadmissible in this, his first post-conviction petition. Appellant’s oral admission of guilt appears in the testimony of Officer Line at the original trial as follows:
“Q. . . . Will you proceed with the conversation with this defendant at that time ?
A. ... When I asked if she [victim] could identify him, she said it was him, and at that time she broke down and kept saying, ‘Why, did you do it’.
Q. Who is she?
A. Mrs___
Q. The lady sitting at my right ?
A. Yes.
Q. ‘Why did you do it’ is that what she said ?
A. Yes.
Q. What did the defendant say when she said that?
A. He said T did not do it’ at first, and she kept asking and then he looked at me and he could tell I was a little perturbed. He said, ‘If you don’t hit me I will tell you I was the one that did it’. I said, ‘O.K. we will go outside’. I asked what he did with the stocking *310and knife. He said ‘the knife is in my coat pocket in the car’ and he said ‘the stocking I threw when I was running behind the houses.’ So I took him back outside. Previous, before I went outside, I turned him over to the deputy sheriff who placed him under arrest.
Q. What was his name ?”
No objection was made to this testimony of Officer Line. The only motion to suppress made by defense counsel was directed to State’s exhibit #15, a written confession given at the sheriff’s office at a later time. The motion for new trial, while as lengthy as described by the majority contains no reference whatsoever to any error having been committed by the trial court in receiving the items of evidence complained of by appellant here. Indeed, in the absence of an in-trial objection or a motion to suppress, there would be none. The failure to object at trial constitutes a waiver on appeal attributable to the appellant. It is therefore obvious to me that the trial court erred in making the following conclusion of law:
“2. Where a petitioner raises claims of basic denials of constitutional rights in a petition for post conviction relief and has previously failed to raise these questions on appeal, the burden is upon petitioner to show some substantial basis or circumstance at this hearing which would satisfactorily mitigate or explain petitioner’s failure to pursue the remedy through normal appellate procedure routes.”
There was no failure here to pursue any remedy through the normal appellate routes. I would therefore reverse the trial court denial of the petition on this ground and order a new hearing.
In addition, I will not examine the entire transcript of the original trial to determine whether or not defense counsel at trial engaged in an acceptable strategy as contemplated by Henry v. Mississippi (1965), 379 U.S. 443, 85 S. Ct. 564, 13 L. Ed. 2d 408, in not objecting to these items of evidence, or in not taking a change of venue from Marion County, as *311that issue has not been raised in the post conviction petition nor litigated in the hearing upon the petition.
Note.—Reported in 295 N. E. 2d 362.