Caudill v. State, 311 N.E.2d 429 (Ind. 1974). · Go Syfert
Search
Caudill v. State, 311 N.E.2d 429 (Ind. 1974). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Loren Hamilton Fry v. State of Indiana (ind, 2013-06-25)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) Loren Hamilton Fry v. State of Indiana (6×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Ind. · 2013 · confidence medium
We have long held that in a murder case “the presumption is against the right to be admitted to bail, and the burden is on the [defendant] to show that the proof is not evident nor the presumption of his guilt strong.” Phillips v. State, 550 N.E.2d 1290, 1294 (Ind.1990); accord Partlow v. State, 453 N.E.2d 259, 274 (Ind.1983); Caudill v. State, 262 Ind. 40 , 311 N.E.2d 429, 430 (1974); Bozovichar v. State, 230 Ind. 358 , 103 N.E.2d 680, 681 (1952); State v. Hedges, 177 Ind. 589 , 98 N.E. 417 (1912); Schmidt v. Simmons, 137 Ind. 93 , 36 N.E. 516 (1894); Ex parte Jones, 55 Ind. 176, 179-80 (…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rohr v. State
Ind. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Phillips, 550 N.E.2d at 1295 (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and that its decision was not unreasonable or arbitrary where the trial court determined that the proof against the defendant was evident and the presumption of his guilt strong, and where the trial court conducted a hearing on the defendant's petition for bail at which the court heard the testimony of five witnesses which encompassed all the evidence contemplated in the case and at which the defendant was accorded the right to counsel, the right to present witnesses in his defense, the right to …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Simpson v. Owens (2×)
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
Ann art. 331 (West 2003) (prior to indictment, burden on State but, after indictment, burden on defendant); State v. Lowe, 204 Ala. 288 , 85 So. 707, 708 (1920); Quillen v. Betts, 98 A.2d 770, 773 (Del. 1953); Caudill v. State, 262 Ind. 40 , 311 N.E.2d 429, 430 (1974); Fischer v. Ball, 212 Md. 517 , 129 A.2d 822, 826 (1957); Huff v. Edwards, 241 So.2d 654, 655-56 (Miss.1970) (prior to indictment, burden on State but, after indictment, burden on defendant). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Flossie Caudill
v.
State of Indiana
1173S245.
Indiana Supreme Court.
May 21, 1974.
311 N.E.2d 429
1974 Ind. LEXIS 265
Howard S. Grimm, Jr., of Auburn, for appellant., Theodore L. Sendak, Attorney General, Larry C. Gossett, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.
Hunter, Arterburn, Debruler, Givan, Prentice.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published
Hunter, J. *

This is an interlocutory appeal from an order of the Noble Circuit Court denying bail to the defendant-appellant.

The defendant was charged by a Noble County Grand Jury indictment with first degree murder on September 24, 1973. Defendant was charged with the murder of her husband, one Edgar Caudill.

The defendant filed an Application To Be Let To Bail with the Noble Circuit Court, which application was duly denied after a full evidentiary hearing on October 30, 1973. Defendant appeals from that adverse ruling.

Article 1, Section 17, of the Indiana Constitution provides as follows:

[*41] “Bailable offenses—Offenses, other than murder or treason, shall be bailable by sufficient sureties. Murder or treason shall not be bailable when the proof is evident, or the presumption strong.”

The presumption is against the right to be admitted to bail in a murder case, and the burden is on the defendant to show that the proof is not evident or the presumption of guilt strong. Bozovichar v. State (1952), 280 Ind. 358, 103 N.E.2d 680.

After a careful review of the evidence presented at the hearing, we have concluded that the defendant has failed to carry her evidentiary burden as required by the Indiana Constitution and the Bozovichar case supra. Although a jury may ultimately find the State’s evidence to be insufficient to support the allegations in the indictment, we believe that the trial court acted properly in refusing to admit the defendant to bail.

For all the foregoing reasons, the order of the Noble Circuit Court is hereby affirmed.

Arterburn, C.J., DeBruler, Givan and Prentice, JJ., concur.

Note.—Reported at 311 N.E.2d 429.

*

This case was transferred and re-assigned to this office May 14, 1974.