Brock v. State
| Decision Date | 23 July 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 181S14,181S14 |
| Citation | 423 N.E.2d 302 |
| Parties | Gordon E. BROCK, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Charles A. Beck, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Raymond M. Kirtley, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Gordon E. Brock was convicted by a jury of robbery, a class B felony. Ind.Code § 35-42-5-1 (Burns 1979 Repl.). He was sentenced to the Indiana Department of Corrections for a period of twenty years. In his direct appeal, he raises the following issues for our review:
1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conclusion that he was the person who committed the robbery; and 2. Whether alleged prosecutorial misconduct constituted reversible error.
The record reveals that on February 20, 1979, the "Liquor Locker" located at 1540 Kentucky Avenue in Indianapolis was robbed by a Caucasian male approximately fifty years of age. A photographic identification of defendant as the man who robbed the liquor store was made by employee Delores Brown and prompted defendant's arrest for the conviction at issue here.
Defendant maintains that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support the conclusion that he was the person who committed the robbery of the Liquor Locker. His contention is premised on instances of equivocation in Delores Brown's in-court identification of him as the robber. Specifically, defendant relies on the following testimony from Brown's direct examination:
Q. "Now, looking around this Courtroom, do you see anyone whom you recognize as being the individual who robbed you on February 20th, 1979?"
A. "It looks a lot like the guy right there."
He also points to the following testimony from the cross-examination of Brown:
Q.
A. "I don't like to tell anything on anybody that I'm not pretty sure of."
Q. "You what?"
A. "That I'm not pretty sure of."
Q. "The question was, are you telling the jury under oath, that the man I now touch was the man who robbed you?"
A. "He looks to me like the very man that stood and held the gun in my face."
Q. "He looks like the guy who held the gun on you?"
A. "Yes, he does."
Defendant asserts that this equivocal testimony fails to establish beyond a reasonable doubt his identity as the perpetrator and that, inasmuch as Brown was the only eyewitness to the robbery, his conviction must be reversed.
It is well settled that when the sufficiency of the evidence is raised as an issue on appeal, this Court will not weigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Moon v. State, (1981) Ind., 419 N.E.2d 740; Henderson v. State, (1976) 264 Ind. 334, 343 N.E.2d 776. Only when this Court has confronted "inherently improbable" testimony, Penn v. State, (1957) 237 Ind. 374, 146 N.E.2d 240, or coerced and wholly uncorroborated testimony of "incredible dubiosity," Gaddis v. State, (1969) 253 Ind. 73, 251 N.E.2d 658, has this Court disturbed the prerogative of the jury to judge the credibility of a witness.
Here, the evidence reveals eyewitness Brown was in the presence of the perpetrator for a period of two to three minutes. She stated the man was approximately three feet away from her for the duration of the robbery, that the store was "pretty well lit," and that she was able to see his face "pretty well." That same day, she described the perpetrator to Indianapolis police officers as a white male, approximately fifty years old, who wore blue work clothing, had receding brown hair, and weighed approximately 160 pounds. The following day at police headquarters, she identified a photograph of defendant as the man who had committed the robbery. On four separate occasions at trial, Brown identified defendant as the perpetrator.
In his brief, defendant concedes that Brown's testimony during these various in-court identifications was sometimes "more deliberate" than those portions quoted to support his argument. At various junctures, the record does reveal certitude on the part of Brown regarding her identification:
Q. "Do you recognize what's marked as State's Exhibit Number 1?"
A. "I'm sure that's the guy I picked out."
Q. "Is that an accurate representation of the photo you recall selecting that day?"
A. "I'm sure it is."
Q. "Is that the same individual that robbed you?"
A. "Yes, I'm sure it is." (Direct examination.)
Q. "Wholly convinced, Mrs. Brown?"
A. "Yes, I am." (Re-cross examination.)
Q. "Now you are telling us that it definitely is him, is that what you are now telling us."
A. "That is the man that robbed me." (Re-cross examination.)
Defendant maintains "such comments are clearly the result of the witness trying to avoid the embarrassment of monumental error."
That assertion strikes directly at the credibility of the witness. We are not at liberty in these circumstances to assess her credibility or to say that her unequivocal testimony was not credulous in light of her somewhat tentative statements. "Identifying testimony need not necessarily be unequivocal." Lottie v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 124, 311 N.E.2d 800; Wilson v. State, (1977) 172 Ind.App. 476, 360 N.E.2d 1010. The jury had the opportunity to view Brown's demeanor; she was examined extensively by both the state and defense concerning the verity of her photographic and in-court identifications. We cannot disturb the jury's conclusion that the defendant, whose physical characteristics were substantially in accord with those attributed to the perpetrator, was the person who committed the robbery. Lottie v. State, supra; Wilson v. State, supra. The evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction.
Defendant contends that alleged prosecutorial misconduct placed him in "grave peril of conviction" and constitutes reversible error. His argument is predicated on the following comment 1 by Deputy Prosecutor Whitney, which he uttered during his cross-examination of defendant's wife:
Q. "You don't want anything to happen to him, do you?"
A. "Well, certainly not, not when he is an innocent man."
Q. "You don't know whether he is innocent or not, do you?"
A. "Yes, I do, he took a lie detector test "
MR. WHITNEY: "Your Honor, that is "
A. " and passed it."
With the jury absent from the courtroom, the court established that defense counsel had not induced or encouraged the witness to mention the results of the polygraph examination. The Deputy Prosecutor's remarks toward defense counsel were characterized by the trial court as "unprofessional" but made in "the heat of battle." Defense counsel indicated he felt the remarks were intended to malign him, but stated he "would not belabor the personal matter because it was rather insignificant ...." Both parties then joined in a motion to admonish the jury to disregard the reference to the polygraph examination, which the trial court granted. No similar motion was tendered to the court concerning Deputy Prosecutor Whitney's remarks, nor was a motion for mistrial presented to the court. The jury then returned to the courtroom, was admonished to disregard the reference to the polygraph examination, and the trial proceeded.
In support of his contention that the Deputy Pros...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ryan v. State
... ... 725 N.E.2d at 858–60. Similarly, in Brock v. State, this Court found that the prosecutor's statement that defense counsel was “pulling the most low life tricks in this case,” was improper but did not place the defendant in grave peril. 423 N.E.2d 302, 304–05 (Ind.1981) (noting that defense counsel conceded it was a “rather ... ...
-
Glover v. State
... ... 725 N.E.2d at 85860. Similarly, in Brock v. State , this Court found that the prosecutor's statement that defense counsel was "pulling the most low life tricks in this case," was improper but did not place the defendant in grave peril. 423 N.E.2d 302, 30405 (Ind. 1981) (noting that defense counsel conceded it was a "rather insignificant" ... ...
-
Lawrence v. State, 784
... ... This Court does not reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. Lane v. State (1981), Ind., 428 N.E.2d 28. The jury had an opportunity to hear the witness during an extensive examination and to observe her demeanor. We will not disturb the jury's conclusion. Brock v. State (1981), Ind., 423 N.E.2d 302; Lane, supra. We hold there was sufficient evidence to support the finding of the jury ... Secondly, appellant attacks the in-court identification on the grounds it was tainted by an impermissibly suggestive photographic array. The ... ...
-
Settles v. State Of Ind.
... ... Both victims identified Settles at trial. In such a situation, a reviewing court "is not at liberty ... to assess [the witness's] credibility or to say that her unequivocal testimony was not credulous in light of her somewhat tentative statements." Brock v. State, 423 N.E.2d 302, 304 (Ind. 1981). There, our Indiana Supreme Court stated identifying testimony need not necessarily be unequivocal, id., and notedthe jury had the opportunity to view [the witness's] demeanor; she was examined extensively by both the state and defense concerning the ... ...