Bryant v. State

• Decision Date: 22 February 1972
• Docket Number: No. 1269S285,1269S285
• Citation: 278 N.E.2d 576,257 Ind. 679,29 Ind.Dec. 302
• Parties: Kenneth D. BRYANT, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 576

278 N.E.2d 576

257 Ind. 679

Kenneth D. BRYANT, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.

No. 1269S285.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Feb. 22, 1972.

Gil I. Berry, Jr., Indianapolis, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., William F. Thompson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

DeBRULER, Judge.

The appellant was tried by a jury in the Criminal Court of Marion County, Honorable Saul I. Rabb, Judge, presiding, and convicted of the offenses of entering to commit a felony and assault and battery with intent to kill. The appellant's co-defendant, Harold Lee Lloyd, was tried with the appellant and found guilty of the same offenses. We have previously considered co-defendant Lloyd's appeal from this conviction and, finding the evidence against Lloyd insufficient to sustain a conviction, ordered a new trial. Lloyd v. State (1971), Ind., 269 N.E.2d 389.

The appellant here challenges the sufficiency of evidence against him in this case. He argues that the sole evidence against him, an identification by the victim, was insufficient in that the victim was a seventy-four year old man who admittedly only got a five second look at his assailant and first identified the appellant under prejudicial circumstances at a pre-trial hearing. The appellant argues that, in such a case, corroboration is needed and since there was no corroboration the evidence is insufficient. This argument is clearly specious, as it is settled law in this State, as well as in other jurisdictions, that a conviction can be supported by the identification of a single eye-witness. Moore v. State (1970), Ind., 256 N.E.2d 907. If the appellant believed that his identification at the trial was tainted by improper suggestion at the pre-trial stage, a pre-trial motion to suppress the identification or a motion to suppress the identification at trial would have safeguarded his rights. However, no such motion was made in this case.

In passing on the sufficiency of the evidence this Court will not weigh the evidence nor resolve questions of credibility of witnesses, but will look to that evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom which support the verdict of the jury. Asher v. State (1969), Ind., 244 N.E.2d 89. The conviction will be affirmed if from that viewpoint there is evidence of probative value from which the trier of fact could reasonably infer that the appellant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Smith v. State (1970), Ind., 260 N.E.2d 558. In this case, the victim positively identified the appellant as his assailant who had been in his house and fired shots at him. It is for the jury...