Boone v. State

• Decision Date: 20 January 1978
• Docket Number: No. 1176S379,1176S379
• Citation: Boone v. State, 371 N.E.2d 708, 267 Ind. 493 (Ind. 1978)
• Parties: Clifton BOONE, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 708

371 N.E.2d 708

267 Ind. 493

Clifton BOONE, Appellant, v.STATE of Indiana, Appellee.

No. 1176S379.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Jan. 20, 1978.

George J. Glendening, Hammond, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., David T. O'Malia, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

GIVAN, Chief Justice.

Appellant was convicted of three counts of kidnapping and one count of rape.He was sentenced to three life sentences for kidnapping and to a determinate period of 21 years for rape.The record reveals the following facts: On August 13, 1975, three young women were in an automobile stopped at a stop sign in Gary, Indiana.The appellant jumped into their car, pointed a gun at them and ordered the driver to follow the car in front of them.They were led to a location in Lake County where one of the women was raped.At the police station the women identified pictures of the appellant and identified the appellant in a lineup.At the trial all three women identified appellant as the man who had wielded the gun and raped one of them.All three testified that there was sufficient light and time within which to get a clear view of their assailant.Two of the women memorized the license plate number of the car in front of them, which appellant's accomplices were driving and one gave a description of the car.This automobile was proven to belong to the appellant.

Appellant first contends there was insufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.On appeal this Court will examine only the evidence most favorable to the State, as well as all reasonable inferences therefrom.Henderson v. State(1976), 264 Ind. 334, 343 N.E.2d 776.The testimony of the three victims recounting the facts recited above, in addition to the other evidence the State adduced, is sufficient evidence of probative value from which the jury could well have concluded that appellant did, in fact, commit the crimes with which he was charged.

On redirect examination of one of the women the State introduced a photograph of appellant's automobile.Defense counsel objected on the ground that it should have been introduced during direct examination and that there was an insufficient foundation laid for its admission.Appellant now insists it was error to overrule his objection.The subject of the automobile was covered in cross examination and was therefore a proper piece of evidence for introduction on redirect examination.See13 I.L.E., Evidence§ 261.As to laying the foundation, the witness was first asked whether or not the photograph was an accurate...