Clodfelder v. State
| Decision Date | 20 May 1926 |
| Docket Number | 25,033 |
| Citation | 151 N.E. 725,198 Ind. 277 |
| Parties | Clodfelder v. State of Indiana |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied October 8, 1926.
1. CRIMINAL LAW.---Verdict of acquittal for robbery and conviction of larceny joined in one count legal.---Section 2212 Burns 1926 authorizes the joinder of a count charging robbery with a count charging larceny of the same goods, and a verdict acquitting the defendant on one charge and convicting him on the other is not contrary to law. p. 279.
2. CRIMINAL LAW.---In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court considers only evidence supporting verdict.---In determining whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction, the Supreme Court considers only the evidence supporting the verdict, and accepts as true all evidence which tends to establish the guilt of the accused, and determines only whether that standing alone, is sufficient to sustain the inference of guilt drawn by the jury. p. 279.
3 LARCENY.---Evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction for larceny.---Evidence held sufficient to sustain the conviction of the maker of a series of notes of larceny, where the notes were taken from the payee by a supposed highwayman, while she was riding with the defendant on a lonely byroad which he had taken instead of the direct road to his destination, and the notes were later found in defendant's office marked "paid." p. 279.
4. CRIMINAL LAW.---Decision of trial court as to misconduct of jurors, on conflicting affidavits, conclusive.---The decision of the trial court as to whether a juror was guilty of misconduct in making certain statements prior to the trial as to the guilt of the accused is conclusive on appeal when there were conflicting affidavits as to such misconduct. p 282.
5. CRIMINAL LAW.---Acceptance of disqualified juror on examination precludes objections after conviction.---A defendant who has accepted a juror after he had stated on his preliminary examination that he had formed an opinion that it would take evidence to remove will not be allowed to claim that the juror was disqualified by reason of said opinion, after return of verdict of guilty. p. 282.
From Knox Circuit Court; Thomas B. Coulter, Judge.
Roy Clodfelder was convicted of grand larceny, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Arnold J. Padgett, Arthur A. Clark and William L. Slinkard, for appellant.
Arthur L. Gilliom, Attorney-General and George J. Muller, Deputy Attorney-General, for the State.
OPINION
The first count of the indictment on which appellant was tried alleged that forcibly and by violence and putting her in fear, at Knox county, Indiana, he had feloniously robbed, taken and stolen from the person of Jessie Bond $ 5 in money, a purse of the value of $ 10, a bank check of the value of $ 17.50, two pairs of spectacles of the value of $ 9 each, and eight notes of the value of $ 1,000 each, all of which were her property. The second count alleged that he feloniously took, stole and carried away of the personal goods and chattels of Jessie Bond the same articles of the same alleged value. The jury returned a verdict as follows: "We, the jury, find the defendant not guilty as charged in the first count of the indictment, but guilty of grand larceny as charged in the second count of the indictment, and that his age is 35 years." The defendant filed a motion for a new trial for the alleged reasons that the verdict is contrary to law, and that it is not sustained by sufficient evidence, and that one of the jurors was guilty of misconduct in that he had expressed an opinion the evening before the commencement of the trial that defendant was guilty and ought to be in the "pen" for life. Overruling that motion is the only error assigned.
The statute provides that "an indictment or affidavit for larceny may contain a count * * * for obtaining the same goods by robbery * * * and the accused may be convicted of either offense." § 2212 Burns 1914, § 185, ch. 169, Acts 1905 p. 584 (624). And the mere fact that defendant was found not guilty of the charge of robbery contained in one count did not make a verdict contrary to law which found him guilty of larceny, as charged in the other count.
In determining whether or not a verdict of guilty is sustained by sufficient evidence the Supreme Court does not weigh the evidence nor undertake to decide any disputed questions of fact. But it accepts as true all evidence which tends to prove what was found by the verdict, and refuses to consider any which tends to prove the contrary, and then determines whether or not that which tends to prove the facts found by the verdict, standing alone and undisputed, sustains the inference of defendant's guilt drawn by the jury. Small v. State (1921), 190 Ind. 406, 408, 130 N.E. 401; Tutsbree v. State (1924), 195 Ind. 581, 583, 145 N.E. 490; Wolfa v. State (1926), 197 Ind. 204, 150 N.E. 98.
There was evidence that, in the spring of 1921, Mrs. Jessie Bond sold defendant an elevator in Oaktown, about twelve miles north of Vincennes, for $ 13,500, and that he paid her $ 3,500 in cash and gave her ten notes for $ 1,000 each, dated April 29, 1921, which were signed by himself and Bernard Hancock, his brother-in-law. That defendant then moved to Oaktown, where he lived thereafter. That defendant paid two of the notes but failed to pay the third when it became due. That he paid the interest on all of them to August 1, 1924. That about the middle of September, 1924, Mrs. Bond was at her sister's in Bruceville, northeast of Vincennes on the state road, and about eight or nine miles southeast of Oaktown, when she telephoned defendant at Oaktown asking him to pay the overdue note, which he had repeatedly promised to do. That after he had failed several times to keep appointments with her, they met by prearrangement in Vincennes, when he promised to see his father at Freedom, seventy miles northeast of Vincennes, and arrange to take up all the notes. That the next Monday afternoon, he came to Bruceville and said that he had arranged with his father to pay off the notes, and if Mrs Bond would go to Vincennes and get them, they would take them to Freedom that afternoon, he saying that his father had the money in the bank where it was not drawing any...
To continue reading
Request your trial