Durbin v. State
| Decision Date | 27 February 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 29435,29435 |
| Parties | George DURBIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
John D. Clouse, Evansville, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Owen S. Boling, Richard M. Givan, Deputies Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was charged by affidavit with the crime of assault and battery with intent to commit a felony, 1 to-wit: robbery; tried by the court without the intervention of a jury, found guilty, and sentenced to the Indiana State Prison for not less than one nor more than ten years.
The sole question here presented is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding and judgment of the court.
In order for the State to sustain a conviction herein it was necessary for it to show, by competent evidence, that appellant herein not only struck the prosecuting witness in a rude, insolent, or unlawful manner, Bruce v. State, 1952, 230 Ind. 413, 420, 104 N.E.2d 129, but also that such assault and battery was committed with the intent to rob the prosecuting witness.
Appellant admits that there is sufficient evidence to establish the commission of assault and battery, but asserts that there is no evidence to show any intent on his part to rob the victim of his assault.
An examination of the evidence in the record most favorable to the State discloses the following:
On the night of November 17, 1955, appellant and one Dorothy Shutt were sitting in a tavern in Evansville, Indiana, when the prosecuting witness entered. All three of the persons involved had been drinking. The prosecuting witness came to the table where appellant and Dorothy Shutt had been sitting at a time when appellant was away from the table. The girl had a conversation with the prosecuting witness who asked her if he could buy her a drink, saying that he had the money. The girl testified that the prosecuting witness asked her to leave the tavern with him and she got up from the table and left the tavern in his company. Appellant observed her and the prosecuting witness start toward the door of the tavern while on his way to the rest room, and when he returned they were gone. He then went outside where he found the couple standing beside a car talking. As appellant approached them he heard the prosecuting witness say that he was going to slap the girl, whereupon he (appellant) hit the prosecuting witness and knocked him down.
There was a police officer in the tavern at the time of the incident and he followed appellant as he left the tavern. This officer testified that he saw appellant strike the prosecuting witness and bend over him after he had fallen to the ground. At that time the officer put his gun on appellant and said,
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evans v. State
...from which the trier of facts could reasonably infer that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See, Durbin v. State (1957), 236 Ind. 379, 140 N.E.2d 510; Hallums v. State (1968), 249 Ind. 309, 232 N.E.2d 597; Moore v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 23, 256 N.E.2d 907; Taylor v. State......
-
Rutledge v. State
...rude, insolent or angry manner with the intent to rob the victim. Moore v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 23, 256 N.E.2d 907; Durbin v. State (1957), 236 Ind. 379, 140 N.E.2d 510. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence offered by the State to prove these elements, this court can consider only......
-
Johnson v. State
...Christen v. State, 1950, 228 Ind. 30, 39, 40, 89 N.E.2d 445; Todd v. State, 1951, 230 Ind. 85, 90, 101 N.E.2d 922; Durbin v. State, Ind.Sup.1957, 140 N.E.2d 510, 511. The material allegations of Count One of the indictment herein must be established by substantial evidence or proper inferen......
-
Moore v. State
...not only the commission of the assault and battery, but also to show the defendant's intent to rob the victim. Durbin v. State (1957), 236 Ind. 379, 140 N.E.2d 510. The facts are these: On January 14, 1968, at approximately 1:00 a.m., William Arnold, the prosecuting witness, entered a liquo......