Douglas v. State, 49S00-8701-CR-101
| Decision Date | 22 March 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 49S00-8701-CR-101,49S00-8701-CR-101 |
| Citation | 520 N.E.2d 427 |
| Parties | Steve DOUGLAS, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Michael Gene Worden, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Defendant-Appellant Steven A. Douglas was convicted in the Marion Superior Court, Criminal Division, Room III of three counts of Kidnapping, as class A felonies; Criminal Deviate Conduct, a class A felony; Rape, a class A felony; and Robbery a class B felony. The court sentenced Douglas to forty (40) years on each of the kidnapping counts; forty (40) years on the criminal deviate conduct count; forty (40) years on the rape count; twenty (20) years on the robbery count, the sentences to be served concurrently. He directly appeals raising the following issues for our review:
1. sufficiency of the evidence, and
2. alleged error by the trial court in applying aggravating circumstances in sentencing.
The facts most favorable to the State show than on August 7, 1985, at approximately 2:00 a.m., Sidney and Teresa Vonburg, their infant son Matthew, and Teresa's younger sister, C.S., were at the White Castle located at 302 South Virginia Avenue in Indianapolis. When Teresa went into the restaurant two black men, later identified as Appellant Douglas and Calvin Harris approached the Vonburg's van from both sides. Douglas pointed a pistol at Sidney and demanded entry into the van. Harris and Douglas entered the van. Harris drove while Douglas, who was armed with the gun, went to the back of the van. Douglas demanded Sidney's money and jewelry, then ordered Sidney to lie face down in the back of the van. Douglas ordered C.S. to a couch area in the back of the van, and the baby remained in his crib. Douglas forced C.S., with the gun at her head, to perform oral sex and vaginal intercourse. Douglas then instructed Harris to pull the van over and the two perpetrators traded places. Douglas then drove the van and his accomplice raped and sodomized C.S. After the second rape, Douglas pulled the van over to the side of the road and the two confederates took an AM/FM stereo cassette radio, Teresa's purse containing her personal papers, a two liter bottle of Pepsi, and the keys to the van. The police were immediately notified of the incident and following investigation, Douglas and his accomplice were arrested and charged.
Douglas complains the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions. He claims the State did not meet its burden of proof on the issue of identity as neither Sidney Vonburg nor C.S. were able to identify him as being one of the participants. Harris testified for the State and implicated Douglas. Douglas asserts Harris's testimony was unbelievable because he gave differing statements to the police, and also admitted in court that there was no way of knowing whether he was telling the truth. Additionally, Harris testified he had smoked three or four marijuana cigarettes prior to his giving a statement to Detective Deal, and that he was still high on drugs when he gave the statement. Douglas asserts that as Harris's testimony contains many discrepancies, it has no probative value.
While the testimony of an accomplice must be highly scrutinized by the trier of fact, an accomplice is a competent witness and a defendant may be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Griffin v. State (1986), Ind., 493 N.E.2d 439, 442; Davis v. State (1985), Ind., 472 N.E.2d 922, 925. This court does not judge the credibility of witnesses nor reweigh the evidence. Rather, we look only to that evidence most favorable to the State and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. If there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the conclusion of the trier of fact the verdict will not be overturned. Everroad v. State (1982), Ind., 442 N.E.2d 994, 1003. It is for the trier of fact to reject a defendant's version of what happened, to determine all inferences arising from the evidence, and to decide which witnesses to believe. Id.
Here,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stephenson v. State
...Thompson v. State, 671 N.E.2d 1165, 1167 (Ind.1996), reh'g denied; Garrison v. State, 589 N.E.2d 1156, 1159 (Ind. 1992); Douglas v. State, 520 N.E.2d 427, 428 (Ind.1988). We have further stated, "The fact that the accomplice may not be completely trustworthy goes to the weight and credibili......
-
Timberlake v. State
...contain inconsistencies, the resolution of those inconsistencies is for the jury, and not this Court, to decide. ; Douglas v. State, 520 N.E.2d 427, 428 (Ind.1988). The fact that the accomplice may not be completely trustworthy goes to the weight and credibility of the witness' testimony, s......
-
Pike v. State
...of an accomplice must be highly scrutinized by the trier of fact, but it can alone support a defendant's conviction. Douglas v. State (1988), Ind., 520 N.E.2d 427. In the present case, the accomplice linked the defendant with the crime. His testimony was corroborated by other witnesses who ......
-
Draper v. State
...by the fact-finder, an accomplice is a competent witness whose uncorroborated testimony may support a conviction. Douglas v. State (1988), Ind., 520 N.E.2d 427, 428. The second count involves the robbery of Stella Nikruto. Draper argues that Starks' testimony that she did not discuss her in......