Turentine v. State
Indiana Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
SULLIVAN, Judge.
Gordon Turentine and William L. Ingram appeal their convictions of Theft. 1 Though each defendant was tried separately and each has perfected his separate appeal, the operative facts arise from the same transaction and the appeals involve a common question of law. Therefore, pursuant to Ind.Rules of Procedure, Appellate Rule 5(B), we consolidate the appeals and by this decision dispose of both.
Substantially the same evidence was adduced at the trials of both appellants. Significantly, however, certain testimony was admitted at Ingram’s trial which was excluded at the trial of…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Burks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Corrao v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1972
- Vaughn v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1971
- C.T.S. Corp. v. SchoultonIndiana Supreme Court · 1978
- Kern v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1957
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Thomas v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1981
- Gaddie v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1980
- Crafton v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1983
- Grove v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1983
- Frazier v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1980
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.