Hilligoss v. State, 1168S192

Decision Date05 February 1970
Docket NumberNo. 1168S192,1168S192
PartiesGilbert Gerald HILLIGOSS, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

Henry P. Schrenker, Public Defender (Trial Court), Anderson, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Curtis C. Plopper, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

GIVAN, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction of the offense of armed robbery. Trial was by jury resulting in a verdict of guilty. Appellant assigns as error in this Court the overruling of his motion for a new trial.

The record in this case discloses the following:

At about 11:00 P.M. on the night of September 29, 1967, one Agnes B. Good, the prosecuting witness, who was the owner and manager of A. Good Package Liquor Store in Anderson, Indiana, was preparing to close the store when a man later identified by her as the appellant came in and purchased a half pint of whiskey. He paid for his purchase, walked toward the door, then abruptly swung around and pointed a gun at Mrs. Good. He ordered her into the wash room at the back of the store where he closed the door and ordered Mrs. Good to remain. Mrs. Good testified that there were bells at the front door which rang when someone went in or out. She said she heard the bell ring twice while she was in the back room.

After the bell rang the second time, Mrs. Good came out of the wash room and saw William E. Turner standing in the store. She went to the cash register and determined that all of the paper money was gone; only some change remained in the drawer.

Mr. Turner testified that when he came in the store another man was there. He testified that this man opened the cash register. Mr. Turner stated that he did not actually see the man remove money from the register. The man then walked out the front door. Shortly after this Mrs. Good appeared pale and shaking.

Mrs. Good testified that she closely observed the appellant for a period of a few minutes; that she was making a conscious effort to notice the color of his hair and facial features and his approximate height and weight. Based upon this she made a positive identification of the appellant in the court room as the person who had ordered her into the back room of her store and who had been in the store at the time the money was missing from the cash register.

Appellant first argues that the trial court erred in permitting Mrs. Good to testify to the amount of money missing from the cash register. This objection was on the basis of the best evidence rule claiming that the cash register tape would be the best evidence as to the amount missing. We find no merit in this contention for two reasons: first, the best evidence rule applies only in those situations where parties seek to prove a writing for the purpose of establishing its terms. In such an instance the instrument itself is the best evidence. However, in the case at bar there was no attempt to prove the content of the tape in the cash register. The question in issue was how much money was taken from the cash register at a particular time. Mrs. Good was in charge of the cash register at that time and the trial court was well within its discretion in ruling that Mrs. Good was competent to testify to the amount of money taken so long as the facts were within her knowledge. See 32A C.J.S. Evidence § 786. See also Maier v. Publicker Commercial Alcohol Co., (D.C.1944), 62 F.Supp. 161, 167.

Secondly, it is immaterial in the case of robbery to establish the exact amount of money taken. The fact that anything of value was taken from the victim in armed robbery is sufficient to establish the offense. Therefore, there was no issue before the court as to the exact amount which was removed from the cash register during the robbery. See Holler v. State (1941), 219 Ind. 303, 38 N.E.2d 242; Eicks v. State (1933), 204 Ind. 417, 184 N.E. 407.

Appellant next urges that the court erred in permitting an amendment to the affidavit by interlineation to conform to the testimony as to the amount of money taken. The affidavit alleged that $300 had been taken. The court permitted the amendment to show that $160 had been taken. For the reasons above stated the making of this amendment made no change in the nature of the crime charged and therefore was permissible under Burns' Indiana Statutes § 9--1133. There was, therefore, no error in permitting the amendment.

Appellant next contends there was no evidence in the record to sustain that portion of the verdict finding the appellant to be 22 years of age. The appellant takes the position that the only evidence as to his age in the record was in the testimony of Officer Marionski whose testimony was ordered stricken on a motion to suppress. However, an examination of the record discloses the motion to strike was made and sustained following Officer Marionski's testimony concerning the arrest. However, following the sustaining of the motion to suppress, Officer...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • State v. Harriston, 13933
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • April 10, 1979
    ...1130 (1972); Grace v. State, Del.Supr., 314 A.2d 169 (1973); People v. Adams, 41 Ill.2d 98, 242 N.E.2d 167 (1968); Hilligoss v. State, 253 Ind. 443, 255 N.E.2d 101 (1970); State v. Bittner, 209 Iowa 109, 227 N.W. 601 (1929); Armstrong v. Commonwealth, Ky., 517 S.W.2d 233 (1974); State v. Le......
  • Norris v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • September 19, 1979
    ... ... Buchanan v. State (1975) 263 Ind. 360, 332 N.E.2d 213; Hilligoss v. State (1970) 253 ... Ind. 443, 255 N.E.2d 101; Herman v. State (1965) 247 Ind. 7, 210 N.E.2d 249. See Howard v. State, supra ; Johnson v. State ... ...
  • Smith v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • December 30, 1975
    ...satisfied. This, however, was not argued. Further, it appears that Divich's testimony would have been competent. In Hilligoss v. State (1970), 250 Ind. 443, 255 N.E.2d 101, a similar case, a woman was robbed in a store she operated and was called to testify about the amount of money taken. ......
  • Gee v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • May 22, 1979
    ...shop and it was proper for the State to use his testimony to establish the chain of custody for Exhibit X. In Hilligoss v. State, (1970) 253 Ind. 443, 446, 255 N.E.2d 101, 104, in regard to a similar situation the Court The matter of separation of witnesses is left to the sound discretion o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT