Gray v. State
| Decision Date | 29 July 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 1--673A114,1--673A114 |
| Parties | Harmon GRAY, Defendant-Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Harriette Bailey Conn, Public Defender, Darrell F. Ellis, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for defendant-appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Gary M. Crist, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for plaintiff-appellee.
The defendant-appellant (Gray) is appealing his conviction, after a jury trial, of Conspiracy to Commit a Felony--Uttering a Forged Instrument.
The sole issue raised by Gray is whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
We hold that the evidence was sufficient.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction, we consider only that evidence most favorable to the State with all reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom. If substantial evidence on each element of the crime was placed before the jury, the conviction may not be disturbed upon appeal. Shelton v. State (1972), Ind., 290 N.E.2d 47.
Prior to reviewing the evidence it should be noted that the essential elements of the offense charged are (1) a uniting or combining, (2) with another person or persons, (3) for the purpose of committing a felony, (4) within or without this State. IC 1971, 35--1--111--1, Ind.Ann.Stat. § 10--1101 (Burns 1956).
The evidence most favorable to the State reveals that two men entered the Bank Cigar Store seeking to cash a check drawn upon the business account of 'Swisher and Swank.' The clerk cashed the checks and then called Mr. Swisher to confirm that he had in fact issued the checks. He had not. Mrs. Swisher, the company bookkeeper, then went to the business office and found it broken into. Checks were missing from the middle of the checkbook.
The next day, Gray and several other persons were observed by a service station attendant in a tan 1965 Buick. The car had stopped for gas, oil and some repairs. A short while later, Gray attempted to cash another 'Swisher and Swank' check at the Bank Cigar Store. By this time the store personnel knew the checks had been stolen and alerted the police. Gray was arrested shortly thereafter.
At nearly the same time this activity was taking place, other persons attempted to cash 'Swisher and Swank' checks at Mac's Clothing Store. The police were called to investigate. The same tan 1965 Buick was parked near the store. One of the men who had tried to cash the check in the clothing store was sitting in the car.
Gray's specific contention is that the evidence was insufficient to show an agreement between himself and the others to commit the felonious act. We...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sizemore v. State
...v. State (1974), 162 Ind.App. 354, 319 N.E.2d 668; McAllister v. State (1974), 161 Ind.App. 644, 317 N.E.2d 200; Gray v. State (1974), 161 Ind.App. 70, 314 N.E.2d 798; Hubble v. (1973), 260 Ind. 655, 299 N.E.2d 612, or that each material Fact must be supported by substantial evidence of pro......
-
Sizemore v. State
...v. State, (1974), 162 Ind.App. 354, 319 N.E.2d 668; McAllister v. State, (1974), 161 Ind.App. 644, 317 N.E.2d 200; Gray v. State, (1974), 161 Ind.App. 70, 314 N.E.2d 798; Hubble v. State, (1973), 260 Ind. 655, 299 N.E.2d 612, or that each material Fact must be supported by substantial evide......
-
Briscoe v. State
...Phillip Hartman, (3) for the purpose of committing the felony of first-degree burglary of McFarland's trailer. Gray v. State, (1974) 161 Ind.App. 70, 314 N.E.2d 798. "The essentials necessary to constitute a conspiracy under the statute are well established in this State and they are reaffi......