Felts v. State
Citation | 156 Ind.App. 652,298 N.E.2d 462 |
Decision Date | 05 July 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 2--273A44,2--273A44 |
Parties | Henry FELTS, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). |
Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Palmer K. Ward, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Robert F. Colker, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The Appellant was charged by way of Amended Affidavit of the offense of Second Degree Burglary under IC 1971 35--13--4--4, Ind.Ann.Stat. § 10--701 (Burns 1956 Repl.). Said affidavit alleged:
'BE IT REMEMBERED, That, on this day before me, NOBLE R. PEARCY Prosecuting Attorney of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, personally came CHARLES EZELL who, being duly sworn, upon his oath says that HENRY FELTS on or about the 17th day of JUNE, A.D.1971, at and in the County of Marion in the State of Indiana, did then the there unlawfully, feloniously and burglariously break and enter into the building and structure of Meyer Samuels, doing business as Samuels Market, then and there situate at 2815 E. 25th Street, City of Indianapolis, County of Marion, State of Indiana, which said building and structure was not a place of human habitation, with the intent to commit a felony therein, to wit: to unlawfully and feloniously and knowingly obtain and exert unauthorized control over property of said Meyer Samuels doing business as Samuels Market and to deprive said Meyer Samuels doing business as Samuels Market of the use and benefit of said property, then and there being contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Indiana.'
The Appellant was tried for this offense before a jury and found guilty. The Appellant was 31 years of age and was sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two (2) nor more than five (5) years, committed to the Department of Correction for classification and given credit for twenty-one (21) days toward good time conduct.
The only issue stated in Appellant's Motion to Correct Errors, which was overruled, which has been presented here is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's finding of guilt.
We consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the State to determine if this offense has been proven in the trial court beyond a reasonable doubt. Matthews v. State, 248 Ind. 563, 228 N.E.2d 1 (1967). Where the question of sufficiency is raised on appeal we will consider only the evidence most favorable to the State and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Wagner v. State, 243 Ind. 570, 188 N.E.2d 914 (1963).
The incident here involved allegedly occurred at Samuels Market on East 25th Street in Indianapolis in the early morning hours of June 17, 1971. The owner testified that the building was secure and locked at the close of business on the evening of June 16, 1971. There was also corroborated testimony that said building was secured by a simple circuit by the American Alarm Company. At about 1:30 A.M. on June 17, 1971 two Indianapolis police officers were dispatched to said building as a result of said alarm system which had gone off at said store building. One of the investigating officers testified to observing fresh pry marks on one of the doors to said building. The owner categorically testified that the pry marks in question were not there the night before but the owner saw them when he arrived at the building in the early morning of June 17, 1971. The owner also testified that the back door to said building was secured by lock and key, two bars and the alarm system. He stated that someone might push said door in enough and then dislodge the bars. He gave the opinion that such was the only way someone could have gotten into said building. There was testimony that someone had pried open said door. There was also testimony that said rear door was damaged and had to be completely replaced. Within ten minutes of reaching the scene the investigating police officers entered the building and found that there were boxes pushed back in front of the door which 'were stacked pretty high'.
Upon entry into the building the police first discovered a man named James Earl Edison. The lights in the building were out at the time these officers entered this building. When the police discovered Edison there was a hammer, crowbar and screwdriver lying 'at his knees'. About ten minutes later some 12 to 15 feet away the police observed the Appellant hiding on a 12 to 15 foot high freezer. At the time he was taken into custody the police advised the Appellant of his rights. According to the testimony of one of the police officers present:
Appellant also told one of the police officers present that he had been walking down the alley, saw the store door open and went inside. He also told the police officer that he had a car a few blocks away. There is also testimony that the office in said store building was ransacked, that drawers containing money orders, Travelers Express, and change were pulled out. 'The back room was a mess,' and the items found around the Appellant were in a state of disarray.
Faulkner v. State, Ind., 292 N.E.2d 594 (1973) is a recent expression by our Supreme Court on sufficiency of evidence and is highly relevant here. At 292 N.E.2d 594, 595, 596, Justice DeBruler said:
'Detective Sgt. Charles Coulardot of the Fort Wayne Police Department testified that he found two windows broken at Rice Oldsmobile when he investigated, but that they were unable to discover if anything in the building was disturbed or missing.'
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Parsons v. State
...most favorable to the State and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom which support the judgment of the trial court. Felts v. State (1973), Ind.App., 298 N.E.2d 462; Smith v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 401, 260 N.W.2d 558; Holding v. State (1967), 244 Ind. 75, 190 N.E.2d 660; Myers v. State (19......
-
Clayton v. State, 2--476A165
...ransacked or otherwise disarranged. O'Hara v. State (2d Dist. 1975), Ind.App., 330 N.E.2d 396; Felts v. State (3d Dist. 1973), Ind.App., 298 N.E.2d 462; Ware v. State (1972), 152 Ind.App. 582, 284 N.E.2d 543. While specific intent has been inferred when property from inside the building has......
-
McCauley v. State
...most favorable to the State and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom which support the judgment of the trial court. Felts v. State (1973), Ind.App., 298 N.E.2d 462; Lee v. State (1973), Ind.App., 297 N.E.2d 890; Hash v. State (1973), Ind., 291 N.E.2d 367; Gregory v. State (1972), Ind., 286......
-
Wilson v. State
...had been removed or disturbed within the burglarized premises is evidence of guilt. Judge Sharp of this court, in Felts v. State (1973), Ind.App., 298 N.E.2d 462, stated: 'The jury had a right to infer that Ediwon and the Appellant were accomplices. In this regard our Supreme Court in Cline......