Cody v. State, No. 2--573A108

Docket NºNo. 2--573A108
Citation304 N.E.2d 820, 159 Ind.App. 125
Case DateDecember 28, 1973
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

Page 820

304 N.E.2d 820
159 Ind.App. 125
Carol CODY, alias Carol Lockett, Appellant (Defendant Below),
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).
No. 2--573A108.
Court of Appeals of Indiana, Third District.
Dec. 28, 1973.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 28, 1974.

[159 Ind.App. 126]

Page 821

Robert E. Hughes, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Robert F. Colker, Asst. Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

STATON, Judge.

Carol Cody alias Carol Lockett was tried by court and convicted under the Offenses Against Property Act 1 on November 2, 1972. She was sentenced on December 21, 1972 to imprisonment in the Indiana Women's Prison for not less than one (1) nor more than ten (10) years. Cody timely filed her motion to correct errors which raises the following issues for this Court's consideration:

ISSUE ONE: Was the conviction supported by sufficient evidence?

ISSUE TWO: Was there sufficient evidence to establish the value of the stolen merchandise? 2

ISSUE ONE: In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence in this case, we cannot weigh the evidence nor determine the credibility of the witnesses. Walker v. State (1973), Ind.App., 293 N.E.2d 35; Smith v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 401, 260 N.E.2d 558. We will [159 Ind.App. 127] consider only that evidence most favorable to the State with all reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom. The conviction will be affirmed if, from that point of view, there is substantial evidence of probative value from which the trier of fact could reasonably infer that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Rogers v. State (1972), Ind.App., 290 N.E.2d 135; Taylor v. State (1972), Ind., 284 N.E.2d 775.

The record discloses the following evidence favorable to the State. On May

Page 822

4, 1972 at approximately 12:00 o'clock noon, Shelia McClanahan, a security officer at the William H. Block Company, 4200 South East Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, observed Carol Cody and a companion, Jessie Peterson, in the better dress department. She testified as follows:

'Q. Let me back up just a minute, if I may, and ask you at the time you originally saw the Defendant, what exactly did you see her do herself?

'A. I observed Carol Cody take two dresses from the rack with her left hand on one side of the sack, and her right hand took the two dresses from the rack, and pushed them down inside the sack.

'Q. All right. Where was her companion at that time?

'A. On the opposite side. He had his hand on the other side of the sack.'

Officer McClanahan stated that she was eight feet away from Carol Cody and had a clear view of her transferring the dresses. This testimony is further substantiated by the observations of Special Deputy Larry Sexson of the Marion County Sheriff's Department, who was also working as a security officer at the William H. Block Company on May 4, 1972. He testified:

'A. Yes, I saw the subjects enter the store, at which time I immediately called Officer McClanahan to help me to take over the surveillance of the two subjects.

'Q. Then what did you do, Sir?

'A. I stood approximately 20 feet away from the subjects, while they were in the better dress Department.

[159 Ind.App. 128] 'Q. Could you see the subjects at this time?

'A. Yes, I could.

'Q. I saw Carol Cody take two dresses (a) off of the rack, and bend over, at this time I took a position towards the South entrance of the store. As they were coming down the aisle, Officer McClanahan, was identifying himself and the other subject fled through the doors, and I...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Miresso v. State, No. 2--873A189
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 20, 1975
    ...256 Ind. 603, 271 N.E.2d 133; Thomas v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 309, 268 N.E.2d 609; Cody v. State (1973), [163 Ind.App. 233] Ind.App., 304 N.E.2d 820; Worrell v. State (1930), 91 Ind.App. 259, 171 N.E. Also, his Motion to Correct Errors is silent on this subject. Miresso's second waived iss......
  • Hunter v. Milhous, No. 2--573A117
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • December 28, 1973
    ...Ind. 303, 99 N.E. 419. However, a lack of consideration combined with a fiduciary relationship as here, does give rise to a presumption[159 Ind.App. 125] of undue influence and thus against the validity of the deeds. Fulsom v. Buttolph, supra; Keys v. McDowell, The factors of Milhous' age (......
  • Clark v. State, No. 2-978A333
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 5, 1980
    ...of incompetent evidence which tends only to show facts proven by other competent evidence is not reversible error. Cody v. State, (1974) 159 Ind.App. 125, 304 N.E.2d 820. Further, the introduction of otherwise inadmissible evidence which is merely cumulative and not decisive of guilt is not......
  • Scruggs v. State, No. 3--1273A175
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • October 16, 1974
    ...that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Martin v. State (1974), Ind., 314 N.E.2d 60, Cody v. State (1973), Ind.App., 304 N.E.2d 820. On March 17, 1973, Arlene Scruggs and her husband, Aaron Scruggs, went to the Maier-Northcrest store in Fort Wayne, Indiana to purchase slack......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Miresso v. State, No. 2--873A189
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 20, 1975
    ...256 Ind. 603, 271 N.E.2d 133; Thomas v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 309, 268 N.E.2d 609; Cody v. State (1973), [163 Ind.App. 233] Ind.App., 304 N.E.2d 820; Worrell v. State (1930), 91 Ind.App. 259, 171 N.E. Also, his Motion to Correct Errors is silent on this subject. Miresso's second waived iss......
  • Hunter v. Milhous, No. 2--573A117
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • December 28, 1973
    ...Ind. 303, 99 N.E. 419. However, a lack of consideration combined with a fiduciary relationship as here, does give rise to a presumption[159 Ind.App. 125] of undue influence and thus against the validity of the deeds. Fulsom v. Buttolph, supra; Keys v. McDowell, The factors of Milhous' age (......
  • Clark v. State, No. 2-978A333
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 5, 1980
    ...of incompetent evidence which tends only to show facts proven by other competent evidence is not reversible error. Cody v. State, (1974) 159 Ind.App. 125, 304 N.E.2d 820. Further, the introduction of otherwise inadmissible evidence which is merely cumulative and not decisive of guilt is not......
  • Scruggs v. State, No. 3--1273A175
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • October 16, 1974
    ...that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Martin v. State (1974), Ind., 314 N.E.2d 60, Cody v. State (1973), Ind.App., 304 N.E.2d 820. On March 17, 1973, Arlene Scruggs and her husband, Aaron Scruggs, went to the Maier-Northcrest store in Fort Wayne, Indiana to purchase slack......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT