Gooch v. State

Citation165 Ind.App. 162,331 N.E.2d 467
Decision Date28 July 1975
Docket NumberNo. 2--1274A305,2--1274A305
PartiesCharles GOOCH, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

Richard D. Gilroy, Mullin, Foley & Gilroy, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Robert M. Lingenfelter, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.



Appellant-defendant Gooch appeals from his conviction of First Degree Burglary, IC 1971, 35--13--4--4, Ind.Ann.Stat. § 10--701 (Burns 1956), contending the evidence was not sufficient to infer the element of breaking and entering.

We affirm.

The record reveals that the occupant of the premises here involved closed and secured the entrance way before he left for work. The State's key witness, the landlady, then related that when she observed someone in Gooch's apartment attempting to open a permanently closed window, she entered the kitchen area, which divided the two apartments.

As she entered the common kitchen, she observed Gooch through the now opened door of the other occupant's room and saw that the clothes hangers were empty but quivering as if someone had just removed the clothing.

She inquired as to where the occupant's clothing was, whereupon, Gooch, as he proceeded to leave the apartment and enter the kitchen area, exclaimed that he did not take the clothing. He then attempted to coax her to come into his room to check for the missing clothing, but she refused, believing he was possibly on drugs.

The landlady then left the premises and immediately called the police. She continued to observe the apartment, while she stood in her home, and saw Gooch and another other person, hurriedly leave the premises, with clothing, a TV, and a stereo, all belonging to the other occupant. In their haste, numerous items of clothing were dropped on the ground, but Gooch returned and retrieved the items, leaving just before the police arrived.

The investigating officer testified that the door lock mechanism was defective. Although it could be locked, it was not secure because with several hard blows, it would open.

When this Court is requested to review the sufficiency of the evidence, it will look only to the evidence most favorable to the State and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Martin v. State (1974), Ind., 314 N.E.2d 60; Keyton v. State (1972), 257 Ind. 645, 278 N.E.2d 277; Cabell v. State (1974), Ind.App., 312 N.E.2d 142; Hauk v. State (1974), Ind.App. 312 N.E.2d 92; Caywood v. State (1974), Ind.App., 311 N.E.2d 845. In examining the evidence presented, this Court will consider inferences drawn therefrom reasonable if there was substantial evidence of probative value presented. Birkla v. State (1975), Ind., 323 N.E.2d 645; Allbritten v. State (1974), Ind., 317 N.E.2d 854; Releford v. State (1975), Ind.App., 325 N.E.2d 214.

The elements of First Degree Burglary are breaking and entering into a dwelling house or a place of human habitation with the intent to commit a felony therein. Lamb v. State (1974), Ind.App., 318 N.E.2d 587; Berry v. State (1972), Ind.App., 287 N.E.2d 557. As to the element of breaking and entering, it is not necessary to show forcible entry, only that some physical act was used to gain entry. Davis v. State (1974), Ind.App., 319 N.E.2d 673. Neither must it be shown that an actual felony was committed, only an intent to commit a felony. Gorbett v. State (1974), Ind.App., 318 N.E.2d 592. Each of these elements may be proved by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Carter v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • April 20, 1976
    ...Johnson v. State (1975), Ind.App., 332 N.E.2d 247 (attempted flight and television sets in car and trunk); Gooch v. State (1975), Ind.App., 331 N.E.2d 467 (clothing removed from hangers and other items missing); Beard v. State (1975), Ind.App., 327 N.E.2d 629 (items missing); McMullen v. St......
  • Sluss v. State, 1-282A41
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • June 29, 1982
    ...583, 325 N.E.2d 478. It is not necessary to show forcible entry, only that some physical act was used to gain entry. Gooch v. State, (1975) 165 Ind.App. 162, 331 N.E.2d 467. While the State concedes a confession is inadmissible without independent proof of the corpus delicti, evidence which......
  • McCormick v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • October 31, 1978
    ... ...         In order to constitute a "breaking," it is not necessary to show forcible entry, only that some physical act was used to gain entry. Gooch v. State (1975) Ind.App., ... 331 N.E.2d 467. The opening of an unlocked door is sufficient to constitute a "breaking." Richardson v. State (1968) 247 Ind. 610, 220 N.E.2d 345. Therefore, whether or not McCormick used a clothes hanger to gain entry is immaterial; for, the mere act of turning ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT