Ballard v. State
| Citation | 531 N.E.2d 196 |
| Decision Date | 07 December 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 49S00-8802-CR-214,49S00-8802-CR-214 |
| Parties | Anthony BALLARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Aaron E. Haith, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Wendy L. Stone, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
A jury trial resulted in a conviction of appellant of Robbery, a Class B felony, and Confinement, a Class B felony. He received sentences of fifteen (15) years on each conviction, to be served consecutively.
The facts are: On January 12, 1987, at approximately 11:50 p.m., Verna Weaver was finishing her shift at the Village Pantry at 1937 East Prospect Street in Indianapolis. Two men came into the store, one of whom was later identified as appellant. One bought a pack of gum, and she noticed him repeatedly looking around the store before they left. Minutes later they returned and appellant placed an item on the counter. As Weaver rang up a sale on the cash register, appellant pointed a gun at her and demanded that she open the cash drawer. He directed her to place money in a bag, which she did.
In removing money from the drawer, a surveillance camera was triggered and took pictures of the robbers. Later Weaver identified appellant and his companion in a photographic array displayed to her by the police and also identified the photographs taken by the surveillance camera. In addition, she identified appellant as one of the robbers at the trial.
Appellant claims the trial court erred in admitting State's Exhibits 2 through 21 into evidence. These exhibits were photographs which were taken by the surveillance camera during the robbery. The film was developed by the Indianapolis Police Department Processing Laboratory. At trial, Detective Hilligoss testified that he had unloaded the film from the camera and taken the same to the laboratory where it was processed. He was unable to say that the photographs were a true and accurate portrayal of that which they purported to show.
For this reason, appellant claims the exhibits should not have been placed in evidence, citing Williams v. State (1979), 271 Ind. 476, 393 N.E.2d 183. However, Weaver identified the photographs as accurate representations of what they purported to show. The trial court therefore did not err in allowing them in evidence. Boyd v. State (1986), Ind., 494 N.E.2d 284, cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1046, 107 S.Ct. 910, 93 L.Ed.2d 860.
Appellant contends the trial court erred in its imposition of consecutive sentences and that to do so was cruel and unusual. The trial court imposed enhanced sentences pursuant to Ind.Code Sec. 35-38-1-7. Although the statute sets out factors...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stanger v. State
...he had engaged in acts constituting child molesting with the victims, as they had accused him. (R. 1565). See also, Ballard v. State (1988), Ind., 531 N.E.2d 196. The sentencing court also cites as an aggravating factor the age of the victims but does not expound further. IND.CODE 35-38-1-7......
-
Willoughby v. State
...evidence of his character. A trial judge may also consider a defendant's lack of remorse as an aggravating circumstance. Ballard v. State (1988), Ind., 531 N.E.2d 196. In the present case, the trial judge did not err in finding as aggravating circumstances the defendant's concealment of Ter......
-
Wethington v. State
...to consider other relevant factors relating to the specific facts of the crime and the defendant's character. See, e.g., Ballard v. State (1988), Ind., 531 N.E.2d 196; Miles v. State (1984), Ind., 468 N.E.2d 1040. Further, a court may find that the factual details of the manner in which the......
-
Farrell v. State
...Ed.1985) is present, or, at the court's discretion, that some other relevant factor or factors justify the punishment. Ballard v. State (1988) Ind., 531 N.E.2d 196, 197. Such determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Arthur v. State (1986) Ind., 499 N.E.2d Before addressing those......