Gaskins v. State
| Citation | 167 Ind.App. 405,339 N.E.2d 125 |
| Decision Date | 29 December 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 2--575A125,2--575A125 |
| Parties | Jonah GASKINS, Defendant-Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Robert W. McClelland, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Robert M. Lingenfelter, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Before SULLIVAN, P.J., and BUCHANAN and WHITE, JJ.
Defendant-appellant, Jonah Gaskins, was charged with two counts of Assault and Battery with Intent to Kill. 1 After a court trial, he was convicted of two counts of Aggravated Assault and Battery. 2
The facts most favorable to the State reveal that at approximately 9:00 p.m. on January 4, 1974, Jonah Gaskins and his father, James Gaskins, entered the home of Richard and Stella Buckler without invitation. 3 Jonah began pouring beer on the floor, and when Stella asked him to leave, Jonah struck her. She asked why she had been struck and Jonah answered that she was being beaten because she had refused James Gaskins permission to reside at her house. Jonah struck her repeatedly on the head and face with his fists, a beer bottle, and the telephone receiver. Jonah then dragged Stella cross the floor, broke a beer bottle and cut her face with the jagged edge.
During the fray, Richard Buckler tried to intervene. Jonah struck Richard in the face with his fists, knocked him to the floor and kicked him in the head and chest. Richard suffered a broken nose and severe contusions.
Gaskins preserves two issues for appeal:
I. Whether the evidence as to Court I 4 is sufficient.
II. Whether a photograph was erroneously admitted into evidence.
The version of the incident as testified to by Jonah and James Gaskins substantially conflicted with the version given by the Bucklers. Gaskins maintains that the conflicting version of the incident was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.
Gaskins' argument is merely an attempt to have this court weigh the evidence. It is well established, however, that this Court cannot weigh the evidence nor determine the credibility of the witnesses. We must consider only that evidence most favorable to the State, together with all logical and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. McFarland v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 349, 295 N.E.2d 809; Layne v. State (1975), ind.App., 329 N.E.2d 612.
The statute under which Gaskins was convicted, IC 1971, 35--13--3--1, Ind.Ann.Stat. § 10--410 (Burns Supp.1975), provides, inter alia:
'Whoever intentionally or knowingly and unlawfully inflicts great bodily harm or disfigurement upon another person is guilty of aggravated assault and batter . . ..'
Substantial evidence of probative value was presented indicating that Gaskins unlawfully and knowingly inflicted great bodily harm upon Stella Buckler.
Gaskins contends that a photograph of Stella Buckler taken approximately five days after the assault was irrelevant and should not have been admitted into evidence.
It was our opinion that Gaskins has waived the issue of the admissibility of the photograph by failing to object to its admission on grounds of irrelevancy. Gaskins' objection reads as follows:
It is apparent that the objection was directed toward the authenticity of the photograph and the sufficiency of the foundation laid by the State prior to its admission. Failure to object on the grounds argued on appeal constitutes a waiver and...
To continue reading
Request your trial