Lindsey v. State, 370S67
| Decision Date | 30 August 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 370S67,370S67 |
| Citation | 272 N.E.2d 458,257 Ind. 78 |
| Parties | Albert Thomas LINDSEY alias Dickie Pepper, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
James A. Connor, Robert V. Bridwell, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Lon D. Showley, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Defendant (Appellant) was convicted of rape under 1956 Repl.Burns, Ind.Stat.Ann. § 10--4201, IC 1971, 35--13--4--3 (Acts of 1941, Ch. 148, § 3) and was sentenced to the Indiana State Reformatory for a term of from two (2) to twenty-one (21) years.
Error assigned challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in that: (1) Prosecuting witness, a sixteen year old girl, was not qualified by the State as to competency; (2) Defendant was not properly identified as being the person who was alleged to have committed the crime charged; (3) The State failed to prove venue, in that it was not proved that the offense occurred in the State of Indiana; and (4) The State failed to prove that the offense did in fact occur, inasmuch as the prosecuting witness described the act between her and Defendant as 'intercourse' rather than as 'sexual intercourse' and as 'penetration' rather than as 'penetration of her female sex organ by Defendant's male sex organ.'
We are aware of no principle that requires a party to take any special steps with reference to qualifying a sixteen year old witness to testify, and Appellant has cited no authority in support of such a principle.
During the interrogation of the prosecuting witness, she was asked if she met the defendant on the date of the offense, and she replied that she did. She was then asked if she then saw him in court; and she replied that she did. Thereupon, she was asked to point him out. The record discloses merely that 'the witness pointed.' It does not specify the person to whom she pointed. Again the defendant has cited no authority supporting his contention that the record must show that the defendant was pointed to in order to reflect a proper identification. There was abundant testimony that the assailant was Albert Thomas Lindsey. Albert Thomas Lindsey was present in court at the trial and in fact testified that he was with the prosecuting witness on the day of the offense. There was evidence of probative value that he was the same person charged with the offense.
In reviewing the allegations of insufficient evidence, this Court will not wiegh the evidence nor resolve questions of credibility of witnesses, but will look to that evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom which support the verdict of the jury. (Emphasis ours). Gann v. State (1971), Ind., 269 N.E.2d 381; Asher v. State (1969), Ind., 244 N.E.2d 89. The conviction will be affirmed, if from that viewpoint there is evidence of probative value from which the trier of the facts could reasonably infer that the appellant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Gann v. State, supra; Smith v. State (1970), Ind., 260 N.E.2d 558.
The testimony of the prosecuting witness set the locus of the offense as being in Marion County but did not specify that it was within the State of Indiana. We take judicial notice that Marion County is in the State of Indiana, just as we have previously taken judicial notice that Evansville is in Vanderburgh County; Southern Ry. Co. of Indiana et al. v. Ingle (1945), 223 Ind....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...victims, support the jury's conclusion that penetration of each victim's sex organ by defendant's sex organ did occur. Lindsey v. State, (1971) 257 Ind. 78, 272 N.E.2d 458; Davis v. State, (1972) 258 Ind. 533, 282 N.E.2d 805; Omans v. State, (1980) Ind.App., 412 N.E.2d 305. The evidence is ......
-
Omans v. State
...her testimony, the inference to be drawn is that defendant's male sex organ penetrated Debbie's female sex organ. Lindsey v. State (1971), 257 Ind. 78, 272 N.E.2d 458. Cf.: People v. Vicencio (1945) 71 Cal.App.2d 361, 162 P.2d 650 (testimony that prosecutrix did not know whether or not ther......
-
State v. Wildenberg
...intercourse" or "intercourse" with her or "raped" her is sufficient, if believed, to establish penetration. See, e.g., Lindsey v. State, 257 Ind. 78, 272 N.E.2d 458 (1971) (16-year-old complainant's use of terms such as "intercourse" interpreted in context of case to mean sexual intercourse......
-
McChristian v. State
...the basis of the defendant's argument is that the record does not reflect who was seated to the prosecutor's left. In Lindsey v. State, (1971) 257 Ind. 78, 272 N.E.2d 458, the record indicated that the witness, when asked if she saw the defendant in court, merely pointed. The Court noted th......