Cotton v. State
| Decision Date | 08 December 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 30507,30507 |
| Citation | 212 N.E.2d 159,247 Ind. 56 |
| Parties | Charles Wayne COTTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Appeal from Marion Criminal Court Div. 2, Marion County; Saul I. Rabb, judge.
Don R. Money, Money, Orr & Bridwell, Indianapolis, for appellant.
John Dillon, Atty. Gen., Edgar, S. Husted, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The question raised or attempted to be raised by this appeal in the main are directed to the admissibility and/or weight of the evidence adduced by the State.
The majority opinion, Ind., 211 N.E.2d 158, sufficiently delineates the factual situation present in the case at bar.
The legal questions presented are either within the discretionary area allowed the court or are directed to the weight of the evidence, and hence are subject to review only for the purpose of determining whether or not there was an abuse of discretion or that reversible error had been committed. We do not weigh such evidence, that is the function of the trier of the facts.
In the case at bar the trial was to the court. A review of the evidence discloses that considering, as we must on appeal, only that evidence most favorable to appellee, there was no abuse of discretion and no reversible error committed in the admission or exclusion thereof. Dooley v. State, (1965), Ind., 211 N.E.2d 179; Music v. State (1959), 240 Ind. 54, 161 N.E.2d 615; In re State Bd. of Accounts, etc. v. Holovachka etc. (1957), 236 Ind. 565, 142 N.E.2d 593; McFarlan v. Fowler Bank City Trust Co. (1938), 214 Ind. 10, 12 N.E.2d 752.
The judgment of the court should be and is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hart v. State
...exclusive possession of recently stolen goods will support a theft conviction. Cotton v. State (1965), 247 Ind. 56, 211 N.E.2d 158, 212 N.E.2d 159, Bruck v. State (1963), 244 Ind. 466, 193 N.E.2d 491, and Bradley v. State (1963), 244 Ind. 630, 195 N.E.2d It has also long been the law in Ind......
-
McGill v. State
...is insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for participation in the crime. Cotton v. State (1965), 247 Ind. 56, 211 N.E.2d 158, 212 N.E.2d 159; Guetling v. State (1926), 198 Ind. 718, 153 N.E. 765. However, presence at the scene in connection with other cricumstances tending to show p......
-
Emler v. State, 670S135
...254 Ind. 301, 258 N.E.2d 849; Davis v. State (1968), 249 Ind. 373, 232 N.E.2d 867; Cotton v. State (1965), 247 Ind. 56, 211 N.E.2d 158, 212 N.E.2d 159; Hunter v. State (1965), 246 Ind. 494, 207 N.E.2d 207; Yarber v. State (1962), 242 Ind. 616, 179 N.E.2d 882; Dobbs v. State (1957), 237 Ind.......
-
Graddy v. State
...is attributable to them all. Jones v. State (1963), 244 Ind. 682, 195 N.E.2d 460; Cotton v. State (1965), 247 Ind. 56, 211 N.E.2d 158 (212 N.E.2d 159). . . . (Our Second, the court could, from the evidence before it, have concluded that the State had proven a case of entering to commit a fe......