Alexander v. State, No. 1--675A106
| Docket Nº | No. 1--675A106 |
| Citation | 340 N.E.2d 366, 167 Ind.App. 688 |
| Case Date | January 28, 1976 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Page 366
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
[167 Ind.App. 689] Stephen C. Haas, Evansville, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Arthur Thaddeus Perry, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
LOWDERMILK, Judge.
Appellant Wilbert Alexander was tried before a jury and convicted of the crime of theft of property valued at less than one hundred ($100) dollars. Alexander now
Page 367
appeals his conviction, presenting the following issues for review:I) Whether it was error for the trial court to overrule Alexander's motion for a directed verdict which was made at the close of the State's case.
II) Whether the trial court erred in admitting into evidence testimony of other similar offenses.
[167 Ind.App. 690] III) Whether the trial court improperly denied Alexander's motion to strike all testimony of other similar offenses and admonish the jury to disregard such testimony.
FACTS:
Robert Cox, manager of the Four Seasons Motel in Posey County, stated that Alexander registered at the motel on January 31, 1974. Alexander signed the registration card as 'C. W. Williams,' gave a Gary, Indiana, address, and stated the make of his car to be a 1971 Chevrolet, license number '82D8116.' The following day, the television set from the room assigned to Alexander was found to be missing.
A passing motorist also testified that on the evening of January 31, 1974, she observed two people carrying a television out of one of the rooms at the Four Seasons Motel.
In addition, there was testimony from managers of three other motels that Alexander had registered at each of the motels under an assumed name; had given a Gary address; stated the make of car driven to be a 1971 Chevrolet; and, on at least two occasions, had given the same incorrect Indiana license plate number as was given on the Four Seasons Motel registration card. Each manager testified that the room occupied by Alexander contained a television set when Alexander checked in, but that it was missing the following day.
I.
Alexander first argues that it was error for the trial court to overrule his motion for a directed verdict because there existed at the time of the motion a fatal variance between pleading and proof.
It is Alexander's contention that while the charging information states the owner of the property to be the 'Four Seasons Motel,' the proof is that the television was owned by the Four Seasons Motel, Inc. Alexander argues that the above discrepancy is a fatal variance, and that the variance [167 Ind.App. 691] prejudiced him by misleading him as to the nature of the charges.
We do not find Alexander's argument persuasive. Throughout the trial, there was reference to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Conner v. State, No. 2-378A99
...rule in Indiana is that evidence of separate and distinct offenses is generally not admissible. Alexander v. State, (1976) Ind.App., 340 N.E.2d 366, 368. An equally well-established exception to this general rule is that such evidence is admissible to show intent, motive, purpose, identific......
-
DeMichaeli and Associates v. Sanders, No. 2--474A89
...That deletion had the effect to reversing the all inclusive Pietzuak, supra, interpretation of the original section 8. It made manifest[167 Ind.App. 688] the intent of the legislature that no longer should every form of wilful misconduct prohibit the allowance of compensation. Thereafter on......
-
O'Conner v. State, No. 180S18
...such evidence is admissible to show intent, motive, purpose, identification or common scheme or plan. Alexander v. State (1976) Ind.App., 340 N.E.2d 366. In Martin v. State (1978) Ind., 372 N.E.2d 181, this Court held that the admission of evidence of alleged acts of child abuse to show pre......
-
Maldonado v. State, No. 1275S385
...(1975) Ind., 335 N.E.2d 215. The Court of Appeals has stated the essence of this rule succinctly in Alexander v. State, (1976) Ind.App., 340 N.E.2d 366, 'In allowing such evidence in certain instances, the court seeks to permit the full disclosure of all relevant facts which have some proba......
-
O'Conner v. State, No. 2-378A99
...rule in Indiana is that evidence of separate and distinct offenses is generally not admissible. Alexander v. State, (1976) Ind.App., 340 N.E.2d 366, 368. An equally well-established exception to this general rule is that such evidence is admissible to show intent, motive, purpose, identific......
-
DeMichaeli and Associates v. Sanders, No. 2--474A89
...That deletion had the effect to reversing the all inclusive Pietzuak, supra, interpretation of the original section 8. It made manifest[167 Ind.App. 688] the intent of the legislature that no longer should every form of wilful misconduct prohibit the allowance of compensation. Thereafter on......
-
O'Conner v. State, No. 180S18
...such evidence is admissible to show intent, motive, purpose, identification or common scheme or plan. Alexander v. State (1976) Ind.App., 340 N.E.2d 366. In Martin v. State (1978) Ind., 372 N.E.2d 181, this Court held that the admission of evidence of alleged acts of child abuse to show pre......
-
Maldonado v. State, No. 1275S385
...(1975) Ind., 335 N.E.2d 215. The Court of Appeals has stated the essence of this rule succinctly in Alexander v. State, (1976) Ind.App., 340 N.E.2d 366, 'In allowing such evidence in certain instances, the court seeks to permit the full disclosure of all relevant facts which have some proba......