Courchaine v. State

• Decision Date: 22 August 1989
• Docket Number: No. 45S00-8806-CR-588,45S00-8806-CR-588
• Citation: 542 N.E.2d 969
• Parties: Matthew COURCHAINE, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 969

542 N.E.2d 969

Matthew COURCHAINE, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.

No. 45S00-8806-CR-588.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Aug. 22, 1989.

Marce Gonzalez, Jr., Appellate Div., Lake Superior Court, Crown Point, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Louis E. Ransdell, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

PIVARNIK, Justice.

Defendant-Appellant Matthew Courchaine was convicted following a jury trial in the Lake Superior Court of the crime of Inducing or Causing a Burglary, a Class B felony, and was sentenced to a term of thirteen (13) years.

Courchaine was prosecuted pursuant to Ind.Code Sec. 35-41-2-4 which provides as follows:

Aiding, inducing, or causing an offense.--A person who knowingly or intentionally aids, induces, or causes another person to commit an offense commits that offense....

Courchaine's appeal is based on alleged error of the trial court in denying his Motion for Judgment on the Evidence at the close of the State's case and the claim that there was not sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction. Both issues are based on Courchaine's contention that there was a deficiency of proof in that the only evidence linking Courchaine to the crime of burglary was the use of his vehicle. Courchaine claims the evidence revealed the burglary was committed by Larry Cavinder and Erick Jansen, that the choice of the particular residence to be burglarized was solely that of Cavinder and Jansen and that Courchaine's only involvement was to allow them to use his automobile because Cavinder's was inoperative. An examination of the transcript of evidence reveals that Courchaine was more involved in the commission of this burglary than those few facts would infer.

Both Cavinder and Jansen testified for the State pursuant to the granting of use immunity by the prosecuting attorney for their testimony. Jansen and Cavinder testified that on April 8 or 9, 1987, the three of them met at Courchaine's residence and discussed the commission of burglaries. Jansen and Cavinder had committed burglaries together prior to this time. The plans they made were that Jansen and Cavinder would commit burglaries and bring the items they obtained to Courchaine who would take these items to his cousin's home in the South Bend-Elkhart area. His cousin had a garage in which to store the stolen items and sources who could help them sell the items. Pursuant to this plan, Jansen and Cavinder committed a burglary in Starke County and brought the items to Courchaine's residence. Courchaine was to drive them to the scene of the burglary but did not go with them because he had a meeting with another person named Newman who was to help them dispose of stolen property. Since Cavinder's car was not operative, they drove Courchaine's car, committed the burglary and brought all of the stolen items to Courchaine's residence.

Cavinder and Jansen committed the burglary in question on April 12 at the home of Hugh Richardson, Sr., of Lake County. Several items were taken from this home, including a video recorder, two television sets, a small radio, and jewelry. Though evidence was in conflict, it appears Jansen and Cavinder picked this location to commit a burglary as they were driving by it; however, they were driving Courchaine's car at the time and they returned all of the items taken to Courchaine's residence. Courchaine was attempting to reach his cousin to arrange for delivery of the items from these two burglaries to his garage in...