Ard v. State, 29516
| Decision Date | 12 May 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 29516,29516 |
| Parties | Emmet ARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Daily & Daily, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Owen S. Boling, Merl M. Wall, Deputy Attys. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was convicted of robbery and after trial by the court was sentenced for a period of ten to twenty-five years in the Indiana Reformatory.
He first contends on this appeal that the decision of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence.
Appellant concedes the evidence most favorable to appellee (The State) shows that appellant and two other men confined to jail were taken to Indianapolis City Hospital for dental treatment by two deputy sheriffs. That after two teeth were pulled the men were turned over again to the deputies. That deputy Kelso got up to handcuff two of the men, that he heard a noise and turned around and saw appellant had his arm around deputy McLaughlin's shoulder and that appellant had McLaughlin's gun out. Kelso was then shoved across a table and his gun taken by the other two men. Kelso became scared when one of the men (Bingham) stuck the gun in his side, saying, 'Don't move or I'll shoot you.' Appellant was scuffling with McLaughlin at this time. Appellant was wrestling over the floor and had McLaughlin's gun when he turned around. It was a Colt 38. Appellant did not take Kelso's gun. Appellant stood in the hallway with gun toward McLaughlin waiting for the other two men to come outside the dental clinic. They came backing out, one of the men carrying Kelso's gun. An oral admission of appellant was introduced that appellant and the two men had planned to escape when they were taken from the jail to the dental clinic; that they had planned that appellant grab McLaughlin and the other two grab Kelso, that they took the guns from such deputies and ran away from the clinic and hospital, that appellant grabbed Kelso's gun from the other men and had both guns, that he gave McLaughlin's gun back to the other two men and that he kept Kelso's gun (taken from Kelso by one of the other men) until it was taken from appellant at a Noblesville tavern by police.
Appellant contends the evidence is not sufficient to sustain a conviction of robbery, but that appellant only intended to escape and that appellant did not by force or violence or putting anyone in fear, take a gun from deputy sheriff Kelso, as charged in the affidavit, that the gun in question was taken by one of the other men associated with appellant in the enterprise.
Appellant's contention that he did not intend to commit robbery but intended only to escape is without substance. The evidence, it is true, shows a preconceived plan by appellant and the other two prisoners to escape when they were taken by the officers from the jail to the hospital for dental treatment. The carrying out of that plan may have been in itself a criminal offense as being in violation of one or more of the statutes dealing with escape. 1 However, in any event, the fact an escape was involved does not strengthen appellant's case one iota, nor does it refute the evidence of robbery in the record which stands uncontradicted, the robbery appearing to have been committed by appellant and the other two prisoners in taking the officers' guns by force and putting in fear so as to make good their plan of escape.
Appellant's contention that he is not guilty of robbing deputy sheriff Kelso of the gun, as he did not personally take the gun from Kelso, is similarly without merit. Appellant and the other two prisoners were acting in concert and aiding and abetting each other in forcibly taking the guns of both officers. The evidence and inferences all support the conclusion appellant was guilty as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lock v. State
...supra; Bradberry v. State, supra. Appellant's attorneys were, of course, present at the pretrial conference. We held in Ard v. State, (1958) 238 Ind. 222, 149 N.E.2d 825, that a defendant's absence from proceedings other than trial, verdict and sentencing does not constitute error where he ......
-
Davis v. State, 30668
...well settled that accessories may be tried as principals. Acts of 1905, ch. 169, § 224, p. 584, being § 9--102 Burns' 1956 Rel. Ard v. State (1958), 238 Ind. 222, 149 N.E.2d 825. Under specification B appellant argues causes 12, 6 and 4 of his motion for new trial, and again breaks his argu......
-
Hardin v. State
...and to operate a motor vehicle. See Burns' Sec. 9-102 (1956 Repl.), Acts 1905, ch. 169, Sec. 224, p. 584; Ard v. State (1958), 238 Ind. 222, 225, 149 N.E.2d 825, 827; McCoy et al. v. State (1958), 237 Ind. 654, 658, 148 N.E.2d 190, Appellant has further contended the court erred in overruli......
-
McGraw v. State, 49S02-8710-CR-1016
...not intend to commit robbery by taking another officer's gun but intended only to escape, was without substance. Ard v. State (1958), 238 Ind. 222, 224, 149 N.E.2d 825, 827. This Court unanimously held that while the evidence does show a preconceived plan of escape, the fact of an escape do......