Brown v. State
| Decision Date | 07 October 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 27581.,27581. |
| Parties | BROWN v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
C. O. Brown was convicted of grand larceny, and he appeals.
Affirmed.Appeal from Circuit Court, Allen County; Harry H. Hilgemann, judge.
Moorhead & Gordon and James P. Murphy, all of Fort Wayne, for appellant.
George N. Beamer, Atty. Gen., and Joseph O. Hoffmann, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant was charged by affidavit with grand larceny, tried by the court without a jury, and found guilty. He has assigned error on the overruling of his motion for a new trial, in which it was asserted that the decision of the court was not sustained by sufficient evidence and that it was contrary to law.
The evidence in this case was largely circumstantial, and the appellant contends that it must be held insufficient to sustain the decision when either of two well-recognized rules of law are applied. The appellant first undertakes to invoke the rule that circumstantial evidence, in order to sustain a conviction, must be of a conclusive character and must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence of the accused. The rule is sound, but it is for the guidance of trial courts and does not apply to the reviewing tribunal. Where circumstantial evidence is of a character that two conflicting inferences may reasonably be drawn therefrom, one tending to prove or favorable to the guilt of the accused and the other favorable to his innocence, it is not within the province of this court to determine which inference ought to control. Rosenberg v. State, 1922, 192 Ind. 485, 134 N.E. 856,137 N.E. 53. If, in a case where the evidence is conflicting, the trial court finds against the weight thereof, this constitutes an error of fact and not of law, and it is the duty of the trial court to correct such error by granting a new trial. The rule that this court will not weigh the evidence applies whether it is direct or circumstantial. Howard v. State, 1921, 191 Ind. 232, 131 N.E. 403. It is only where there is no evidence from which the trial judge or jury, as the case may be, may reasonably have drawn an inference of guilt that the decision or verdict will be disturbed on appeal. Scharillo v. State, 1934, 207 Ind. 22, 191 N.E. 76, 77.
The appellant also asserts that in finding him guilty the trial court violated the rule that one inference of fact cannot be based on another. In the celebrated case of Hinshaw v. State, 1897, 147 Ind. 334, 363, 47 N.E. 157, 166, it was said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kestler v. State
... ... this court are not the same. We do not have the same ... opportunity to observe the witnesses. The correct rules and ... their differences are stated in the late case of McAdams ... v. State, 1948, Ind.Sup., 81 N.E.2d 671. In the case of ... Brown v. State, 1941, 219 Ind. 21, 22, 23, 36 N.E.2d ... 759, 760, this court had before it a case where the evidence ... was largely circumstantial and, in disposing of it, said: ... 'The ... appellant first undertakes to invoke the rule that ... circumstantial evidence, in order ... ...