Couch v. State, 30505
| Decision Date | 27 May 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 30505,30505 |
| Citation | 207 N.E.2d 365,246 Ind. 531 |
| Parties | Phillip COUCH, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
James W. Bradford, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., of Indiana, Carl E. Van Dorn, Asst. Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Appellant was tried and convicted by jury on an affidavit charging robbery and was sentenced to the Indiana State Reformatory for a term of 10 to 25 years.
The only error assigned in this appeal is the trial court's overruling of appellant's motion for new trial.
Appellant's sole contention in support of this appeal is that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain a conviction, because the sole evidence connecting him with the crime is the testimony of two alleged accomplices, which testimony, he asserts, is unworthy of belief because:
1. The alleged accomplices were testifying under the threat of an impending trial for their part in the robbery.
2. One alleged accomplice stated on cross-examination that he hoped he would receive leniency because of his cooperation, although no official had indicated this possibility existed.
3. The similarity in the testimony of the two witnesses as well as between their testimony and the allegations of the affidavit, indicates considerable discussion between them and the prosecuting attorney prior to testifying.
Also, in opposition to the testimony of the alleged accomplices, appellant's wife testified that at the time of the alleged robbery, appellant was with her in Alabama. Thus in effect, it is appellant's contention that, whereas the testimony of the alleged accomplices must be received with great scrutiny, we must accept the testimony of his wife which he characterizes as 'uncontradicted' and, therefore, he asserts, that the evidence cannot sustain the verdict of the jury, which evidence under the law must be beyond a reasonable doubt.
However, appellant's contentions do not present grounds for appeal with respect to the wife's testimony. It is subject to the same criteria of bias and self-interest which appellant levels at the accomplices' testimony. Consequently, the jury was faced with conflicting testimony and their verdict reflects a weighing of all factors going to credibility. Such was the peculiar function of the triers of fact and it is not within the province of this court to dispute that determination. Coffer v. State (1958), 239 Ind. 22, 154 N.E.2d 371; See also: Beatty v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Asher v. State
...for conviction. Fitzgerald v. State (1966), Ind., 219 N.E.2d 603; Mavrick v. State (1965),247 Ind. 77, 210 N.E.2d 426; Couch v. State (1965), 246 Ind. 531, 207 N.E.2d 365; Smith v. State (1961), 241 Ind. 601, 174 N.E.2d Burns' Indiana Stat.Anno. § 9--1603 provides specifically that 'accompl......
-
Martin v. State, 669S144
...may be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Glover v. State (1970), Ind., 263 N.E.2d 723; Couch v. State (1965), 246 Ind. 531, 207 N.E.2d 365. Thus, even without the in-court identification of the appellant by the victim the evidence is sufficient for the judge of the......
-
Graves v. State
...of an accomplice. Martin v. State (1972), Ind., 279 N.E.2d 189; Glover v. State (1970), Ind., 263 N.E.2d 723 and Couch v. State (1965), 246 Ind. 531, 207 N.E.2d 365. There was sufficient evidence to support the second degree burglary conviction charged under Count II. We next consider the e......
-
Smithhart v. State, 270S29
...This Court has previously stated that a person may be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Couch v. State (1965), 246 Ind. 531, 207 N.E.2d 365; Smith v. State (1961), 241 Ind. 601, 174 N.E.2d In the case at bar, however, it cannot be said that the testimony of the acc......