Cabell v. State
| Decision Date | 17 June 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 1--1273A223,1--1273A223 |
| Citation | 312 N.E.2d 142,160 Ind.App. 406 |
| Parties | George Clark CABELL, Defendant-Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Malcolm G. Montgomery, Evansville, for defendant-appellant.
Theo. L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., David A. Miller, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for plaintiff-appellee.
The defendant-appellant (Cabell) was convicted by a jury of the offense of Entering to Commit a Felony, IC 1971, 35--13--4--5, Ind.Ann.Stat. § 10--704 (Burns 1956). Cabell's overruled motion to correct errors contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction because there was no proof of his intent to commit a felony. We disagree.
Prior to a discussion of the sufficiency of the evidence, it should be noted that this court will not weigh the evidence but will look to the evidence most favorable to the State and the reasonable inferences therefrom which support the verdict. Washington v. State (1971), Ind., 271 N.E.2d 888.
A review of the facts most favorable to the State are: Henry Hudson discovered upon his return from a stay in jail that his apartment had been burgled. Hudson notified the police and then started looking for the persons who had broken into the apartment. Hudson ran into Cabell who told him where the missing property could be located. Cabell eventually took Hudson to Myers' home where some of the property was discovered. Cabell and Myers began to argue about who broke into Hudson's apartment and took the property. Myers testified that he and Cabell entered Hudson's apartment through a broken window and removed two stero speakers, clothes and other items. Myers said that Cabell had told him that the property belonged to him, but Hudson had possession of them as security for a loan made to Cabell. Cabell had indicated he should have them for safekeeping while Hudson was in jail. Another witness testified to seeing Cabell standing near Hudson's apartment building with a set of stereo speakers. He also saw Myers handing clothes out the window to Cabell. Cabell did not have Hudson's permission to enter the apartment or remove any items therefrom. Hudson acknowledged that some of the items taken were security for a loan.
Cabell contends that his effort to safeguard his property is not a felony, therefore, the state failed to prove the essential element of his intent to commit a felony.
We are of the opinion that the jury heard evidence from which it could find that Cabell entered Hudson's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Long v. State
...be drawn therefrom. Martin v. State (1974), Ind., 314 N.E.2d 60; Keyton v. State (1972), 257 Ind. 645, 278 N.E.2d 277; Cabell v. State (1974), Ind.App., 312 N.E.2d 142; Hauk v. State (1974), Ind.App., 312 N.E.2d 92; Caywood v. State (1974), Ind.App., 311 N.E.2d 845. In examining the evidenc......
-
Sluss v. State, 1-282A41
...v. State, (1975) 163 Ind.App. 237, 323 N.E.2d 253; Gorbett v. State, (1974) 162 Ind.App. 164, 318 N.E.2d 592; Cabell v. State, (1974) 160 Ind.App. 406, 312 N.E.2d 142; and Farno v. State, (1974) 159 Ind.App. 627, 308 N.E.2d In the case at bar, the evidence most favorable to the trial court ......
-
Smith v. State
...be drawn therefrom. Martin v. State (1974), Ind., 314 N.E.2d 60; Keyton v. State (1972), 257 Ind. 645, 278 N.E.2d 277; Cabell v. State (1974), Ind.App., 312 N.E.2d 142; Hauk v. State (1974), Ind.App., 312 N.E.2d 92; Caywood v. State (1974), Ind.App., 311 N.E.2d 845. In examining the evidenc......
-
Perkins v. State, 2--675A158
...796; Davis v. State (1968) 251 Ind. 133, 239 N.E.2d 601; Wynn v. State (3d Dist. 1974) Ind.App., 319 N.E.2d 885; Cabell v. State (1st Dist. 1974) Ind.App., 312 N.E.2d 142. Compare Faulkner v. State (1973) 260 Ind. 82, 292 N.E.2d Here, the felonious intent was independently established. The ......