Green v. State, No. 29801
| Docket Nº | No. 29801 |
| Citation | 168 N.E.2d 345, 241 Ind. 96 |
| Case Date | June 30, 1960 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Page 345
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
[241 Ind. 97] Saul I. Ruman, Sachs, Ruman & Tanasijevich, Saul A. Sachs, Hammond, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Owen S. Boling, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Page 346
LANDIS, Judge.
This is an appeal from appellant's judgment of conviction for grand larceny.
The record reveals that appellant and one Shoup, who were police officers of the City of Hammond, Indiana, were jointly charged in a single affidavit with [241 Ind. 98] grand larceny. On their trial before the court the defendant Shoup was called as a witness for the prosecution as a part of the State's case, and at the conclusion of his testimony and before the commencement of the defense, the State dismissed as to the codefendant Shoup. At the conclusion of the trial the court found appellant to be guilty and sentenced him for a period of one to ten years. The error assigned is the overruling of appellant's motion for new trial.
Appellant contends among other things that the court's finding of guilty is contrary to law and is not sustained by sufficient evidence in that there is not sufficient proof to sustain a larceny conviction against appellant.
The evidence favorable to appellee is to the effect that appellant and codefendant Shoup were fellow police officers of the City of Hammond, Indiana, and that appellant told codefendant Shoup in 1957 appellant could get a refrigerator, washer and dryer for Shoup from a friend. Appellant said he could get the appliances cheap. In the latter part of February, 1957, Shoup received a radio message while on duty to meet a complainant at 156th Street and Kennedy, and when he arrived there met the complainant, who was Officer Green, the appellant, in civilian clothes. It was about 1:00 or 2:00 o'clock in the morning, and appellant asked Shoup if he was still interested in obtaining the Frigidaire refrigerator, washer and dryer, and Shoup said yes. Appellant got into the squad car and after it was driven into a residential district along 165th Street, he asked to be let out and told Shoup to be back in half an hour. When Shoup returned appellant was there with a truck and another man named Joe. Appellant told Shoup to drive to Shoup's house and appellant and Joe followed in the truck carrying the refrigerator, [241 Ind. 99] washer and dryer. Appellant and Joe took the appliances off the truck and put them in Shoup's garage. Shoup paid appellant $50 for the appliances and appellant gave the money to Joe and appellant and Joe left in the truck. Two days later Shoup gave appellant $200 more for the appliances. A building contractor testified the appliances were taken from his model home on 165th Street in Hammond, Indiana, on February 19th or 20th, between 6:00 p. m. and 8:00 a.m., and that he made out a report of seconddegree burglary and the taking of the Frigidaire refrigerator, washer and dryer to the police at 8:25 a. m. on February 20th. He testified the appliances were new when taken and were of the value of $616. 37. The police officers picked up the appliances from Shoup's premises after identifying them as the same machines taken from the model home. No evidence was offered by the defense to explain the possession of the missing articles in the truck or subsequently on the Shoup premises.
We believe this evidence was sufficient to support appellant's conviction upon the basis of the rule enunciated in the case of Mims et al. v. State, 1957, 236 Ind. 439, 444, 140 N.E.2d 878, 880, viz.:
'Exclusive possession of property shown to have been stolen, shortly after the larceny, unquestionably is a circumstance to be considered by the jury, and if proof is made that such larceny was recently committed and there is no evidence to explain the possession of the defendants, a larceny conviction based upon such evidence will be sustained on appeal.' See also: Gilley et al. v. State, 1949, 227 Ind. 701, 88 N.E.2d 759; McAdams v. State, 1948, 226 Ind. 403, 81 N.E.2d 671, and cases cited.
The constitutional questions sought to be raised by appellant are waived by
Page 347
reason of his failure to present [241 Ind....To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turner v. State, No. 470S93
...This Court has stated that a conviction may be based upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Green v. State (1960), 241 Ind. 96, 168 N.E.2d 345. From time to time this Court has made statements to the effect that the testimony of an accomplice must be closely scrutinized and rec......
-
Weekley v. State, No. 1-680A163
...instruction appears to be taken from language employed in Newman v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 569, 334 N.E.2d 684; Green v. State, (1960) 241 Ind. 96, 168 N.E.2d 345; and Kleihege v. State, (1934) 206 Ind. 206, 188 N.E. 786. However, the fact that certain language appears in an opinion does no......
-
People v. Love, Docket No. 10287
...439 F.2d 1105 (C.A. 9, 1971); Padgett v. State, 53 So.2d 106 (Fla.1951); State v. Chang, 46 Hawaii 22, 374 P.2d 5 (1962); Green v.State, 241 Ind. 96, 168 N.E.2d 345 (1960); People v. Gore, 64 Ill.app.2d 309, 211 N.E.2d 757 (1965); Rue v. Commonwealth, 347 S.W.2d 74 (Ky.1961); Cole v. State,......
-
Thomas v. State, No. 31147
...correct its own error without requiring the defendant to resort to the expense and trouble of a needless appeal. In Green v. State (1960), 241 Ind. 96, 168 N.E.2d 345, this court stated that constitutional questions sought to be raised by appellant are waived by his failure to present them ......
-
Turner v. State, No. 470S93
...This Court has stated that a conviction may be based upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Green v. State (1960), 241 Ind. 96, 168 N.E.2d 345. From time to time this Court has made statements to the effect that the testimony of an accomplice must be closely scrutinized and rec......
-
Weekley v. State, No. 1-680A163
...instruction appears to be taken from language employed in Newman v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 569, 334 N.E.2d 684; Green v. State, (1960) 241 Ind. 96, 168 N.E.2d 345; and Kleihege v. State, (1934) 206 Ind. 206, 188 N.E. 786. However, the fact that certain language appears in an opinion does no......
-
People v. Love, Docket No. 10287
...439 F.2d 1105 (C.A. 9, 1971); Padgett v. State, 53 So.2d 106 (Fla.1951); State v. Chang, 46 Hawaii 22, 374 P.2d 5 (1962); Green v.State, 241 Ind. 96, 168 N.E.2d 345 (1960); People v. Gore, 64 Ill.app.2d 309, 211 N.E.2d 757 (1965); Rue v. Commonwealth, 347 S.W.2d 74 (Ky.1961); Cole v. State,......
-
Thomas v. State, No. 31147
...correct its own error without requiring the defendant to resort to the expense and trouble of a needless appeal. In Green v. State (1960), 241 Ind. 96, 168 N.E.2d 345, this court stated that constitutional questions sought to be raised by appellant are waived by his failure to present them ......