Bonds v. State
| Decision Date | 18 March 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 30594,30594 |
| Citation | 214 N.E.2d 796,247 Ind. 260 |
| Parties | Robbie Clure BONDS and Fred Russell Roberts, Appellants, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
L. Keith Bulen, Indianapolis, for appellants.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Frederick J. Graf, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellants, together with two other defendants, were charged by affidavit with grand larceny. The affidavit alleged that the defendants did
'feloniously take, steal and carry away of the personal goods of George L. Neese d/b/a Neese Shell Service, towit: one (1) Wall telephone, value ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS and TWENTY SIX CENTS ($100.26) and ELGHTEEN DOLLARS and TEN CENTS ($18.10) in money then and there of the total value of ONE HUNDRED ELGHTEEN DOLLARS and THIRTY SIX CENTS ($118.36) in lawful money, then and there the property of said George L. Neese D/B/A Neese Shell Service, * * *'
The appellants and the other two defendants were riding in an automobile when they were stopped by a police officer because one headlight of the automobile was out and the driver had failed to make a turn signal. After the officer stopped the automobile, he observed a pay telephone and an assortment of cigarettes on the floor in the back of the automobile. The owner of the automobile fled from the scene and had not yet been found at the time of the trial. The remaining three occupants of the car were eventually charged with grand larceny. It turned out that Neese's Shell Service had been broken into, the telephone removed from the wall, and the cigarette machine broken into. One of the defendants (who was given probation and did not appeal) testified, and stated that he did not know that the telephone was in the car when he got into the car, and claimed that the items in the back were covered at the time he entered the car. There was no other evidence linking the defendants with the apparent burglary. All three defendants who were tried maintained their innocence up through the presentence investigation. The three defendants were found guilty by the court and the appellants received sentences of one to ten years.
As grounds for reversal, the appellants relied chiefly upon certain testimony of one Jack Hottle, a 'security agent' for the Indiana Bell Telephone Company. He testified that the telephone was the property of the Indiana Bell Telephone Company. While he knew nothing of the particular arrangement for the telephone in Neese's Shell Service, he testified that Mr. Neese was a 'bailee or lessee' of the telephone. After he had been dismissed as a witness, he was recalled to the stand by the state and asked the value of the telephone. The appellants objected on the ground that he had not been qualified to give evidence of value. This objection was overruled, and without further questioning, he testified that the telephone was worth $100.26. There is no evidence in the record that Mr. Hottle had any knowledge, either direct or indirect as to the value of the telephone.
In order for any witness to testify as to the value of property, it must be shown...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cokeley
...as to value only if he is qualified by special knowledge of and experience with the particular species of property. Bonds v. State, 247 Ind. 260, 214 N.E.2d 796 (1966); People v. George, 398 Ill. 318, 76 N.E.2d 60 All of the witnesses who testified as to the value of the stolen copper wire ......
-
Coyle Chevrolet Co. v. Carrier
...at the time of acceptance. We first note that the owner of personal property is competent to testify as to its value. Bonds v. State (1966) 247 Ind. 260, 214 N.E.2d 796, (quoting Underhill's Criminal Evidence, 5th Ed., § 322). See State v. Hamar (1937), 211 Ind. 570, 199 N.E. 589; Fox v. Co......
-
Cody v. State, 2--573A108
...witness may testify as to value of property if he is shown to have some special knowledge of the values in question. Bonds v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 260, 262, 214 N.E.2d 796. As an assistant buyer, Nancy Main testified that she had independent knowledge of the price of these particular dres......