Gorbett v. State, 2--674A131
| Decision Date | 12 November 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 2--674A131,2--674A131 |
| Citation | 318 N.E.2d 592,162 Ind.App. 164 |
| Parties | Daniel L. GORBETT, Defendant-Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Lawrence W. Gaston, Jr., Harrison, Moberly & Gaston, Indianapolis, for defendant-appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Robert F. Colker, Asst. Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for plaintiff-appellee.
Defendant-appellant (Gorbett) appeals his conviction of second degree burglary. The only issue presented for review is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the essential elements of the crime charged.
For the reasons stated hereafter, the conviction is affirmed.
A summary of the facts favorable to the State is as follows: Pursuant to information received from a superior officer, two Indianapolis police detectives went to the J. K. Dairy Queen on New York St., Indianapolis, and established surveillance of the premises. The only door was found secure upon their arrival, and the detectives positioned themselves in a nearby parking lot. The officers subsequently observed three subjects kick open the door and enter the building. By moving to a position near the front of the Dairy Queen, one of the policemen was able to clearly identify Gorbett as he rifled drawers inside the store.
At this same time, another officer arrived, and he also observed Gorbett inside the building with his hands in a drawer.
A third officer then arrived at the scene and saw Gorbett run out of the building and down an alley.
Gorbett was apprehended five or six blocks from the store, returned to the scene, and there identified by police as one of the persons observed in the store.
To obtain a conviction for second degree burglary, the State must show that the defendant broke and entered a structure other than a dwelling place, and that he possessed an intent to commit a felony therein. IC 1971, 35--13--4--4, Ind.Ann.Stat. § 10--701(b) (Burns 1956). Gorbett contends the circumstances here involved do not support a finding that he possessed the requisite intent of committing a felony. He places particular emphasis on the fact that when apprehended, he did not have property from the store on his person. Thus, he argues that this is a key fact which negates any finding of criminal intent.
It is the rule in this state that intent may be inferred from circumstances which allow such an inference. Combs v. State (1973), Ind., 295 N.E.2d 366; Luckett v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Long v. State
...a felony therein. Cook v. State (1973), 258 Ind. 667, 284 N.E.2d 81; Reas v. State (1975), Ind.App., 323 N.E.2d 274; Gorbett v. State (1974), Ind.App., 318 N.E.2d 592. Defendant contends that evidence of breaking and entering, without more, is not sufficient to prove an intent to commit a f......
-
Sluss v. State, 1-282A41
...164 Ind.App. 683, 330 N.E.2d 399; Penman, supra; Christian v. State, (1975) 163 Ind.App. 237, 323 N.E.2d 253; Gorbett v. State, (1974) 162 Ind.App. 164, 318 N.E.2d 592; Cabell v. State, (1974) 160 Ind.App. 406, 312 N.E.2d 142; and Farno v. State, (1974) 159 Ind.App. 627, 308 N.E.2d In the c......
-
Hilyard v. State, 2--674A152
...of criminal law. Barnhart v. State (1973), Ind.App., 304 N.E.2d 316; Ellis v. State (1973), Ind.App., 304 N.E.2d 546; Gorbett v. State (1974), Ind.App., 318 N.E.2d 592. In light of the Pryor cases it is our opinion that a reasonable construction of the statute here challenged is possible. T......
-
Gooch v. State
...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 circumstantial evidence. Giles v. State (1974), Ind.App., 320 N.E.2d 806; Windle v. Sta......