Anderson v. State, No. 983S328

Docket NºNo. 983S328
Citation469 N.E.2d 1166
Case DateOctober 30, 1984
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 1166

469 N.E.2d 1166
Stephen ANDERSON, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 983S328.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Oct. 30, 1984.

Page 1167

Nora E. Herndon, Merrillville, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Ind., Lisa M. Paunicka, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

DeBRULER, Justice.

This is a direct appeal from a conviction of robbery, a class A felony, Ind. Code Sec. 35-42-5-1, and from a habitual offender determination. The case was tried before a jury. Appellant was sentenced to a prison term of sixty years.

Appellant raises four issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury that voluntary intoxication is not a defense to robbery; (2) whether the trial court erred in refusing to submit instructions to the jury on the lesser included offenses of robbery; (3) whether the trial court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of the State's case; (4) whether the evidence is sufficient to prove appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

These are the facts that tend to support the determination of guilt. On April 20, 1982, David Mazan, accompanied by the appellant Steve Anderson, and Robert Hubbard, drove in Mazan's vehicle to various taverns in the area of Hammond, Indiana. While in Mazan's vehicle, Anderson and Hubbard severely beat Mazan and pushed him into the backseat. Anderson started to drive the vehicle toward Whiting, Indiana. Hubbard sat in the passenger seat and sharpened a butter knife on the pavement while the vehicle was traveling down the road. When they arrived at Whiting, Anderson and Hubbard removed Mazan from the vehicle and took him behind a building. Then, while Hubbard brandished the knife, Anderson demanded that Mazan give his money to him, and Mazan complied. Subsequently, they put Mazan back in the vehicle, and Anderson drove to a liquor store. After Anderson parked the vehicle, Mazan leaped out of the rear window of the vehicle and ran into the liquor store.

Michael Garrey, a security officer at the liquor store, observed Mazan enter the store. Mazan told Garrey of the robbery, and Garrey observed Anderson standing near the vehicle. Then, Anderson and Hubbard fled the area in Mazan's vehicle in the direction of Chicago, Illinois. Garrey recorded the license number of Mazan's vehicle and called the police.

Officers Joseph Bastie and Patrick Gleason of the Chicago Police Department heard on the radio information concerning the robbery and an advisement to watch for Mazan's 1970 brown Buick. While on patrol, they observed a vehicle which appeared similar to the description of Mazan's vehicle. The officers stopped the vehicle and arrested Anderson and Hubbard. Mazan's testimony indicated that Anderson had twelve to fifteen beers over a nine hour period.

I.

Appellant argues that the trial court erred in tendering an instruction which concluded that voluntary intoxication is not a defense to robbery. The challenged instruction is as follows:

"The defense of intoxication is defined as follows: It is a defense that the person who engaged in the prohibited conduct did so while he was intoxicated, if the intoxication resulted from the introduction of a substance into his body, without his consent or when he did not know that the substance might cause intoxication.

Voluntary intoxication is a defense only to the extent that it negates an element of the offense referred to by the phrase 'with an intent to' or 'with an intention to.'

Page 1168

Therefore, voluntary intoxication is not a defense to Robbery, Class C, or Robbery Class A."

This instruction parallels Ind. Code Sec. 35-41-3-5(b); however, this Court in Terry v. State, (1984) Ind., 465 N.E.2d 1085, (DeBruler, J., concurring in result with opinion), declared that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 practice notes
  • Mauricio v. State, Nos. 683S203
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • April 2, 1985
    ...the jury's convictions. Our standard of reviewing a sufficiency question has been clearly delineated in Anderson v. State, (1984) Ind., 469 N.E.2d 1166, 1169, as "When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence this Court will not weigh the evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses.......
  • Coble v. State, No. 1183S388
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • April 3, 1985
    ...a felony in the Eagle Lumber office. The standard of reviewing a sufficiency question is well stated in Anderson v. State, (1984) Ind., 469 N.E.2d 1166, 1169, as "When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence this Court will not weigh the evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses.......
  • Borkholder v. State, No. 50A03-8901-CR-15
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • October 12, 1989
    ...in denying his motion for judgment on the evidence is not now available for consideration. TR 50(A); Anderson v. State (1984), Ind., 469 N.E.2d 1166, 1168-69, cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1226, 105 S.Ct. 1220, 84 L.Ed.2d Even if we were to consider the alleged error, we find that, absent the Patt......
  • Bowen v. State, No. 683
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • May 20, 1985
    ...crime. Terry v. State (1984), Ind., 465 N.E.2d 1085; Hubbard v. State (1984), Ind., 469 N.E.2d 740; and Anderson v. State (1984), Ind., 469 N.E.2d 1166. However, the potential of this defense should not be confused with the reality of the situation. Terry, The standard of whether or not the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
27 cases
  • Mauricio v. State, Nos. 683S203
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • April 2, 1985
    ...the jury's convictions. Our standard of reviewing a sufficiency question has been clearly delineated in Anderson v. State, (1984) Ind., 469 N.E.2d 1166, 1169, as "When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence this Court will not weigh the evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses.......
  • Coble v. State, No. 1183S388
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • April 3, 1985
    ...a felony in the Eagle Lumber office. The standard of reviewing a sufficiency question is well stated in Anderson v. State, (1984) Ind., 469 N.E.2d 1166, 1169, as "When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence this Court will not weigh the evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses.......
  • Borkholder v. State, No. 50A03-8901-CR-15
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • October 12, 1989
    ...in denying his motion for judgment on the evidence is not now available for consideration. TR 50(A); Anderson v. State (1984), Ind., 469 N.E.2d 1166, 1168-69, cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1226, 105 S.Ct. 1220, 84 L.Ed.2d Even if we were to consider the alleged error, we find that, absent the Patt......
  • Bowen v. State, No. 683
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • May 20, 1985
    ...crime. Terry v. State (1984), Ind., 465 N.E.2d 1085; Hubbard v. State (1984), Ind., 469 N.E.2d 740; and Anderson v. State (1984), Ind., 469 N.E.2d 1166. However, the potential of this defense should not be confused with the reality of the situation. Terry, The standard of whether or not the......
  • 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