Bryant v. State
| Citation | 252 Ind. 17,245 N.E.2d 156 |
| Decision Date | 10 March 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 1068S162,1068S162 |
| Parties | Dennis R. BRYANT, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
James R. Cotner, Snyder, Bunger, Cotner, Harrell & Robertson, Bloomington, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Richard V. Bennett. Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This is an appeal from a conviction under the Offenses Against Property Act, Acts 1963 (Spec.Sess.), ch. 10, § 3, p. 10, being § 10--3030(1)(a), Burns' Indiana Statutes, 1968 Supp. Trial was had before the Court without the intervention of a jury. The motion for new trial charged that the finding of the Court is contrary to law, and that it was not sustained by sufficient evidence.
It is the claim of the appellant that in order to sustain the charge of theft it must be shown that the property taken was the property of the person named in the affidavit. The record in this cause indicates that the true owner of the property in question was the A & W Drive-in of Bloomington, Inc., whereas the affidavit alleged that one Don Lance was the owner. The pertinent section of the statute reads as follows:
'A person commits theft when he (1) knowingly:
'(a) obtains or exerts unauthorized control over property of the owner;' * * *
§ 10--3040(12) of this same statute reads as follows:
* * * '(12) 'Owner' means a person, other than the actor, who has possession of or any other interest in the property involved, even though such interest or possession is unlawful, and without whose consent the actor has no authority to obtain or exert the complained of control over the property.' * * *
The testimony further shows in this case that the prosecuting witness, Don Lance, was one of the owners of the corporation which actually had title to the property in question; that he was president of the corporation and that part of his duties as president of the corporation included examining the accounts of the corporation, and the responsibility of supervising the appellant herein, Dennis R. Bryant, who was employed as manager of the business. That the appellant discharged his duties in handling the funds of the corporation under the direct supervision of the said Don Lance.
The appellant has argued that under the evidence he was the person who had possession of the property in question as agent of the corporation and therefore argues that this excludes the possession in Don Lance. An examination of the testimony of Don Lance discloses that he did state that Dennis Bryant was the manager; however, he also stated that the appellant was under his (Don Lance) supervision, and that it was his direct instruction that the appellant was to take the money from the drive-in to the night depository in the bank. Don Lance stated that he was responsible for the money up to the time it was turned over to the appellant for deposit; that all receipts from the deposits were brought back to Mr. Lance.
It is, therefore, apparent from the evidence that Don Lance comes within the statutory definition of owner as above set out. This is also in keeping with the case law of this state in which this Court has stated prior to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hurst v. State
...place. Typical of this genre of cases are those in which we have applied the "single larceny" doctrine, such as in Bryant v. State, (1969) 252 Ind. 17, 245 N.E.2d 156, and Holt v. State, (1978) 178 Ind.App. 631, 383 N.E.2d 467, where theft from multiple owners or multiple articles stolen fr......
-
Dixon v. State
...the jury could reasonably infer and find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime of theft. Bryant v. State, (1969) 252 Ind. 17, 245 N.E.2d 156; Willoughby v. State, (1969) 252 Ind. 13, 245 N.E.2d Finally, defendant claims he had inadequate and incompetent representa......
-
Moritz v. State
...239; Furnace v. State, (1899) 153 Ind. 93, 54 N.E. 441; Holt v. State, (1978) Ind.App., 383 N.E.2d 467. See also Bryant v. State, (1979) 252 Ind. 17, 245 N.E.2d 156; Bell v. State, (1873) 42 Ind. 335; Jackson v. State, (1860) 14 Ind. The rationale behind the rule is that the simultaneous ta......
-
Pappas v. State, 2-1277A448
...shows him to be in lawful possession of the property. See also, Gregory v. State (1973), 259 Ind. 652, 291 N.E.2d 67; Bryant v. State (1969), 252 Ind. 17, 245 N.E.2d 156. The evidence clearly established that First Federal had lawful possession of the funds to be disbursed and had the duty ......