Coates v. State
| Decision Date | 19 September 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 30886,30886 |
| Citation | 249 Ind. 357,229 N.E.2d 640 |
| Parties | Maurice COATES, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Rice & Vanstone, Evansville, for appellant.
John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen., Kenneth M. Waterman, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a verdict of guilty on the charge of theft by obtaining control over stolen property under the Offenses Against Property Act, Ind. Ann.Stat. § 10--3030(1)(d), (Supp.1967) () and the overruling of the appellant's motion for a new trial.
The main contention of error arises from the fact that the affidavit charged theft by obtaining control over property stolen by another under § 10--3030(1) (d), supra, while the proof shows (at the most) that appellant stole the property himself as would be sufficient under § 10--3030(1)(a). This raises a question of construction under the Theft Code. The appellant contends that this presents a failure of proof while the State contends that this is a variance which is not fatal. The problem of characterization is significant due to the different procedural methods by which trial and appeal are effected. Normally a variance must be raised during trial and raised in the motion for a new trial. See Madison v. State (1955), 234 Ind. 517, 547, 130 N.E.2d 35, 49 (Arterburn, J., the majority opinion as to variance), but see Emmert, J., dissenting as to variance issue and the proper manner for raising it, id. at 538--39, 130 N.E.2d at 45. Furthermore, a failure of proof requires a reversal while a variance is not always fatal. Madison v. State, supra. See also, Note, The Effect of a Variance Between the Pleading and the Proof in Indiana Criminal Procedure, 32 Ind.L.J. 258 (1956).
Prior to the Theft Code, if was certain that proof of larceny under a charge of receiving stolen goods presented a failure of proof, as these were separate and distinct crimes. Vinnedge v. State (1906), 167 Ind. 415, 420, 79 N.E. 353 (embezzlement and larceny). However, the Theft Code creates the crime of theft defining it in various forms within several statutory provisions (§§ 10--3030, 3031, 3032, 3033). The old crimes of larceny, embezzlement, and receiving stolen property are now redefined as theft under § 10--3030, supra. The question is whether under the Theft Code there is one crime of theft in which case the facts at bar would present a variance situation, or whether there are various forms of theft with some of them being individual crimes in which case the facts at bar present a failure of proof.
We have found no express legislative intent on this matter. Other states which have recodified the common law based crimes against property into less complex and technical provisions, have made specific provisions to determine these procedural matters. California (which represents one of the earlier combinations) and New York included a provision that an indictment is sufficient in merely charging that the defendant stole property. Proof of any form of the crime is sufficient to support such a charge. See Cal.Pen.Code § 484 and § 952 (West Supp. 1966), N.Y. Revised Pen. Law § 155.45 (McKinney Consol. Laws, c. 40, 1966--effective Sept. 1, 1967). The New York provision is as follows:
Illinois has a code very similar to ours combining embezzlement, larceny, etc. into what appears to be a single crime of theft with multiple definitions. Ill. Stat. Ann. ch. 38, § 16--1 (Smith-Hurd 1964). As in our code, there is no provision which would indicate whether or not the various types of theft are to be considered as one crime from a procedural standpoint. We have found no Illinois case dealing with the problem of an indictment charging one form of theft with the evidence supporting another form of theft. In most cases it would seem that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gaddie v. State
...In Indiana, 6 Ind.L.Rev. 73, 91, n.95 (1972), for a criticism of the distinction. See also Footnote 5, supra.12 In Coates v. State (1967) 249 Ind. 357, 229 N.E.2d 640, it was held that subsections (1)(a) and (1)(f) (then (1)(d)) related to separate and distinct offenses. The court in Coates......
-
Elmore v. State
...(2)(a) (Burns Code Ed., 1975). And as we read Green v. State (1972), 258 Ind. 481, 484, 282 N.E.2d 548, in relation to Coates v. State (1967), 249 Ind. 357, 229 N.E.2d 640, and Lawrence v. State (1968), 250 Ind. 161, 235 N.E.2d 198, Elmore's testimony is also prima facie proof, as to him, o......
-
Addis v. State
...encompassing both the concept of restraint in place and removal. West's AIC 35-42-3-3 note B. Small (1978); see also Coates v. State, (1967) 249 Ind. 357, 229 N.E.2d 640. Under section one of the statute, the act of nonconsensual confinement is prohibited, irrespective of any intent to remo......
-
Gibson v. State
...of this Court in which we also held that the actual thief could not be prosecuted for receiving stolen property. Coates v. State (1967), Ind., 249 Ind. 357, 229 N.E.2d 640. After lengthy consideration, we have concluded that the Court of Appeals holding in Gibson is correct and disapprove W......