Court Opinion

ID: 9722501
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:37:16.384857+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:36.412093
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion.
Arterburn, C. J.
— It is now revealed on petition for rehearing that there were introduced in evidence (as part of the prison record along with fingerprints of Joseph Smith) photographs certified by the prison officials as those of Joseph Smith committed on two previous felonies. These exhibits not only establish the fact that the person convicted of such felonies was known by the name of Joseph G. Smith (which attorney for appellant admits in his objection thereto is the name of the defendant-appellant in this case) and that the pictures of defendant in each case attached thereto are those of the defendant charged and found guilty of the offenses specified in that particular action.
Certainly the court trying this case and examining the photographs of Joseph Smith in prison, could conclude and did conclude that it was the same defendant sitting in his court room that was being tried in the case now before us. There was, therefore, evidence to support the finding of the trial court as to the identity of the defendant being the same as the man who had been twice previously convicted and was in prison. There is evidence to sustain the judgment of the trial court.
The case of Kelley v. State (1933), 204 Ind. 612, 185 N. E. 453 is distinguishable. The photographs in, that case bore names (aliases) other than that of the defendant. The court.there said: (p. 619)
“. . . Who provided the names and information on the photographs, and the source of the information, is not shown.”
*87In the case before us this information was properly-certified by the warden of the prison.
I think justice to the State and the trial judge requires that this court should admit that its decision is in error and grant a rehearing.
Achor, J., concurs.
Note. — Reported in 181 N. E. 2d 520. Rehearing denied 181 N. E. 2d 525.