Fuller v. State
| Decision Date | 03 August 1971 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 370S49,370S64,s. 370S49 |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | Linda Lee FULLER, Everett Jones, Appellants, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. Everett JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
Palmer K. Ward, Indianapolis, for appellants.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Lon D. Showley, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
These appeals arise out of the same factual situation and trial, and, for convenience have been consolidated and will be here treated together.
Defendants (Appellants) Linda Lee Fuller and Everett Jones, were convicted in a trial by the court upon an indictment in two counts charging conspiracy to commit a felony, to-wit: Rape and Kidnapping. The defendant, Jones, was also convicted upon another indictment charging Rape. The errors assigned are the overruling of motions for new trials, both of which charged that the findings of the court were not sustained by sufficient evidence and were contrary to law.
With respect to the conspiracy charges, Defendants contend that there was no evidence that the defendants had an intelligent, deliberate agreement to commit the offense charged, i.e. conspire to commit a felony, to-wit: Rape; and that there was no evidence as to a material element of the crime of rape, to-wit: Force. With respect to the rape charge, the defendant, Jones, again contends that there was no evidence that the act of intercourse was against the will of the prosecuting witness.
The prosecuting witness, Betty Trent, testified that while she was awaiting a bus at a bus station in the city of Indianapolis, she was approached by Fuller, and at Fuller's invitation accompanied her to the coffee shop where Jones was introduced as Fuller's husband and joined them, with the witness' consent. The defendants invited Trent to go with them to their home. She accepted, and they went in a cab, with the understanding with the defendants that they would return her to the station in time to board her bus which was scheduled to depart in approximately one hour. Shortly after arriving at the defendants' home, Jones produced a gun, which he gave to Fuller; and the two of them took Trent into a bedroom and told her to get undressed and into bed, which she did. The defendants disrobed, got into bed with Trent, caressed erogenous areas of her body, and Jones proceeded to have sexual intercourse with her. Trent further testified that the entire bedroom proceedings were against her will and that she did not struggle or resist because the gun was present, and she was afraid.
Following the aforesaid episode, the defendant, Jones, told Trent that if he let her go she probably would go to the police, and he would 'have to pay a lot to beat the rap'; and the defendant, Fuller, invited her to stay with them and join her in prostitution. Thereafter, Fuller called a friend, Elaine, and told her that the three of them were coming for supper. Still with the gun in their possession, Jones and Fuller took Trent by cab to Elaine's home, where they remained for some time and during which time Trent did not resist or try to escape. No food was served and Trent told the defendants she was hungry, whereupon the three of them went by cab (all in the rear seat) to a restaurant; and when the defendants went to the counter to order, Trent ran out the door. Trent further testified that she accompanied the defendants, as above related, because she was afraid they would kill her if she did not, and that she broke away at what she considered to be her first opportunity.
The defendant, Jones, testified that Trent went with them willingly and remained with them voluntarily throughout the time they were together, and that he did have sexual intercourse with Trent, as testified to by her, but that the act was voluntarily engaged in by her and without any force or threats of violence. The defendant, Fuller, did not testify.
In reviewing the allegation of insufficient evidence, this Court will not weigh the evidence nor resolve questions of credibility of witnesses, but will look to the evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom which support the finding of the trial court. Asher v. State (1969), Ind., 244 N.E.2d 89; McGill v. State (1969), Ind., 247 N.E.2d 514; Lambert v. State (1969), Ind., 249 N.E.2d 502.
The conviction will be affirmed, if from that viewpoint there is evidence of probative value from which the trier of fact could reasonably infer that the appellant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Smith v. State (1970), Ind., 260 N.E.2d 558; Brown v. State (1970), Ind., 263 N.E.2d 534.
With reference to the claim...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shutt v. State
...N.E.2d 699; Turner v. State (1972), 259 Ind. 344, 287 N.E.2d 339; Gibson v. State (1971), 257 Ind. 23, 271 N.E.2d 706; Fuller v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 681, 271 N.E.2d 720." Rosell v. State (1976), Ind., 352 N.E.2d 750, Secondly, in our review, we must also accommodate for possible unreason......
-
Hopkins v. State, 3--1272A96
...could have reasonably inferred that Cornell Lee Hopkins was guilty of first degree burglary beyond a reasonable doubt. Fuller v. State (1971), Ind., 271 N.E.2d 720; Lambert v. State (1969), 252 Ind. 441, 249 N.E.2d 502; and Pfeifer v. State (1972), Ind.App., 283 N.E.2d 567. We find no There......
-
Williams v. State, 671S163
...a reasonable doubt. Turner v. State (1972), Ind., 287 N.E.2d 339; Pinkerton v. State (1972), Ind., 283 N.E.2d 376; Fuller v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 681, 271 N.E.2d 720. Viewed most favorably to the State, the evidence presented at the trial disclosed the following. On the evening of March 1......
-
Pinkerton v. State
...evidence most favorable to the State, together with all logical and reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom. Fuller v. State (1971), Ind., 271 N.E.2d 720; Gibson v. State (1971), Ind., 271 N.E.2d 706; Lambert v. State (1969), 252 Ind. 441, 249 N.E.2d The conviction will be affirm......