Davis v. State, 472A192
Decision Date | 27 September 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 472A192,472A192 |
Parties | Patrick Henry DAVIS, Appellant. v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
David F. McNamar, Steers, Klee, Sullivan & Lemay, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Stephen J. Cuthbert, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Defendant appeals from a sentence of confinement from an indeterminate term of not less than two years nor more than five years, disfranchisement of two years, and costs, imposed upon conviction of second degree burglary.
The only error alleged on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction. Considering, as we must, only the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom most favorable to the state 1, we note the following: Defendant was discovered about 9:00 P.M. hiding under a truck in the garage of a candy and tobaco wholesaler. The building's doors had been padlocked by the last employee to leave earlier that day. When defendant was discovered one door was open and its padlock was open and hanging on the latch. There were no physical marks on the padlock to show that any force had been used to open it. Boxes of cigarettes and other items had been moved to a point near the opened door.
First, defendant contends that the State failed to prove a 'breaking'. That contention is refuted by the testimony of the last employee to leave the building. He testified that he locked the doors when he left the garage. As noted by the Indiana Supreme Court in the case of Cockerham v. State (1965), 246 Ind. 303, 308, 204 N.E.2d 654, 657, 4 Ind.Dec. 619, 622:
Defendant's second contention is that the State failed to prove that he had the intent required by the statute. Proof of intent to commit the crime of theft is provided by the evidence that there were various items which had been placed by the door and that the defendant was found hiding under a truck. This evidence is strikingly...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Clayton v. State, 2--476A165
...State (1970), 254 Ind. 401, 260 N.E.2d 558; Wilson v. State (1st Dist. 1973), Ind.App., 301 N.E.2d 392; Davis v. State (2d Dist. 1972), 153 Ind.App. 340, 287 N.E.2d 590, and cases where a building has been ransacked or otherwise disarranged. O'Hara v. State (2d Dist. 1975), Ind.App., 330 N.......
-
Goodrich v. State
...reasonable to infer that a 'breaking and entering' had occurred. Cockerham v. State (1965), 246 Ind. 303, 204 N.E.2d 654; Davis v. State (1972), Ind.App.,287 N.E.2d 590. Moreover, both Mr. Tarplee and Officer Kraeszig testified that an air conditioner had been displaced from its position in......