Gage v. State
| Citation | 505 N.E.2d 430 |
| Decision Date | 25 March 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 1085S403,1085S403 |
| Parties | Cordell George GAGE, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below). Gregory Gilbert HUNT, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Donald C. Swanson, Jr., Fort Wayne, for Cordell George Gage.
Robert Owen Vegeler, Deputy Public Defender, Fort Wayne, for Gregory Gilbert Hunt.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., John D. Shuman, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Defendants-Appellants Cordell George Gage and Gregory Gilbert Hunt were jointly tried, and each found guilty by a jury, in the Allen Circuit Court of robbery, a class B felony. The trial court subsequently sentenced Gage to a term of twenty (20) years and Hunt to a term of ten (10) years. Four issues are presented for our consideration in this direct appeal:
1. error as to Hunt, concerning admission into evidence of State's Exhibit 6, a sawed-off shotgun;
2. error as to Gage, concerning admission into evidence of State's Exhibit 7, four shotgun shells;
3. sufficiency of the evidence; and
4. sentencing of Hunt.
The facts show the robbery occurred at Cley's Recreation, in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Cley's was an establishment operated by Edward L. Russell, in which there was card playing, pool, and dice. On November 1, 1984, Appellants Gage and Hunt entered Cley's Recreation somewhere between 10:00 and 10:30 p.m., in the company of Mr. Haney. Twelve to fifteen people were in the establishment, including Deborah Stark, one of the robbery victims. Hunt was involved in a dice game being played on the pool table and operated for the house by Tarie Waller. Hunt became engaged in an argument with Waller concerning a five ($5.00) bet. The disagreement interrupted the game so Edward Russell paid Hunt the five ($5.00) dollars. Hunt then walked toward the door of the pool hall, turned around, and aimed a sawed-off shotgun at the players. He announced a "stickup," discharged the shotgun into the wall near the ceiling, and ordered everyone to lie on the floor. At this time, Gage ordered Russell to stand up and give him any money in his pockets. Russell took sixty ($60.00) dollars out of his pocket and gave it to Gage. Gage then took Deborah Stark's purse, removed fifty ($50.00) dollars from it and threw the purse on the floor. Appellants then left the pool hall.
Hunt's testimony conflicted with that of Russell and Stark. Hunt testified that when he became involved in an argument with Tarie Waller, Deborah Stark interposed herself and threatened Hunt. Hunt said he knew Stark had previously killed a man in the upstairs portion of the same building and thought she carried a pistol with her in her purse. He said she reached for her purse as she threatened him. He feared she intended to pull a weapon from it so he discharged the shotgun into the wall or ceiling to deter her. He said he grabbed her purse and threw it to the floor so she could not get a gun out of it. He denied that either he or Gage had taken any money from either Stark or Russell.
Russell called the police immediately after Appellants left the scene. Appellants were arrested by the police at a gasoline station approximately one and one-half miles from Cley's.
Appellant Hunt claims the trial court erred in admitting into evidence State's Exhibit 6, the sawed-off shotgun used in the robbery. Fort Wayne Police Officer Geller testified that when he arrested Hunt in the automobile at the gasoline station, the shotgun was lying partially in view under the seat of the automobile. Geller took possession of the shotgun and found it contained a live round of ammunition. Geller also obtained four live shotgun shells from the back seat of the automobile. Geller attached a tag with identifying notes on it onto the shotgun but did not place any distinguishing marks on either the shotgun or the rounds of ammunition. He then placed all of the items in a paper bag, stapling the top of the bag shut, and putting identifying marks on the outside of the bag. This bag was then deposited in the police property room where it remained until it was brought to court. Victim Russell examined the shotgun and identified it as the weapon used in the robbery. Officer Geller identified the shotgun and stated that it appeared to him to be in the same condition it was in on November 1, 1984, the day he placed it in the property room. The trial court admitted the shotgun into evidence, stating the supporting testimony was sufficient, particularly in view of the unique characteristics of the weapon. However, the trial court refused to admit the four rounds of live ammunition since there were no identifying marks on them to distinguish them from any other shotgun shells.
Appellant Hunt's only objection to the admission of the shotgun is the supporting testimony did not prove it was in "substantially an unchanged position." We see no merit to Appellant's contention. First, we note Appellant Hunt testified the weapon was his and was used in this incident. Further, this Court stated in Woodard v. State (1977), 267 Ind. 19, 24, 366 N.E.2d 1160, 1164:
These items were all hard physical evidence whose characteristics were capable of eyewitness identification, unlike the fungible narcotics involved in Graham v. State (1970), 253 Ind. 525, 255 N.E.2d 652. It is a sufficient foundation for the introduction of such items into evidence that a witness identifies the item and it has relevance to the issues of the case. Owens v. State (1975), 263 Ind. 487, 333 N.E.2d 745.
'If the offered item possesses characteristics which are fairly unique and readily identifiable, and if the substance of which the item is composed is relatively impervious to change, the trial court is viewed as having broad discretion to admit merely on the basis of testimony that the item is the one in question and is in a substantially unchanged condition.'
McCormick, Evidence Sec. 212 at 527 (2d ed. 1972).
Any evidence of tampering or the possibility of tampering goes to the weight of the evidence. It was not error for the trial court to admit these items of evidence.
The trial court properly admitted the shotgun into evidence.
Appellant Gage contends it was reversible error to permit into evidence, over objection, State's Exhibit 7, consisting of four shotgun shells, claiming they were the product of an illegal search and seizure.
Officer Stephen Haynes testified he confronted Gage at the pay window of the gasoline station where Appellants were apprehended. Haynes testified he searched Gage prior to placing him under arrest and found a large number of bills and four shotgun shells.
Where a police officer has a reasonable suspicion that a subject is involved in criminal activity, the officer may frisk the subject without making an arrest even in instances where probable cause is not present. Marsh v. State (1985), Ind., 477 N.E.2d 877, 878. Here, police saw the car leave the scene of the robbery. When the report of the robbery was broadcast moments later, police who had seen the car leave, broadcast a description of the car. The car was seen moments later at a gasoline station. Police detained the passengers and driver of the car at the gasoline station. Gage was outside the car....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whittle v. State
...it is not necessary the evidence show Whittle actually shot the victim. The acts of one accomplice are imputed to all. Gage v. State (1987), Ind., 505 N.E.2d 430, 434; Johansen v. State (1986), Ind., 499 N.E.2d 1128, 1132. As a participant in the raid on the Blues' clubhouse, Whittle is res......
-
Durbin v. State
...It is not necessary for the State to prove that a defendant personally committed every element of a crime charged. Gage v. State (1987), Ind., 505 N.E.2d 430, 434. When two or more people combine their efforts to commit a crime, each person is criminally responsible for all acts committed b......
-
Cobb v. State
...when jury found that he was engaged in robbery at the time of killings), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1002 (2003) ; Gage v. State, 505 N.E.2d 430, 434 (Ind.1987). That is, “[b]y its very nature, robbery is a crime that precludes the use of self-defense if the killing occurs during the commission ......