Gulley v. State
| Decision Date | 10 April 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 1--1272A114,1--1272A114 |
| Citation | 294 N.E.2d 630,156 Ind.App. 15 |
| Parties | Howard E. GULLEY, Defendant-Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Malcolm G. Montgomery, Evansville, for defendant-appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Robert F. Colker, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff-appellee.
Defendant-Appellant (Gulley) was convicted by a jury of jailbreaking in violation of IC 35--21--8--1, Ind.Ann.Stat. § 10--1809 (Burns 1972 Suppl.) and sentenced by the Posey Circuit Court to a term of one year. Gulley's motion to correct errors, which was overruled by the trial court, presents two issues for review on appeal: (1) whether or not there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict of the jury, and (2) whether or not the trial court committed reversible error in allowing testimony as to a prior conviction of defendant.
The sole evidence offered in this cause was the testimony of William Cox, the Posey County sheriff, who at the time of the alleged offense was holding Gulley in custody pending the filing of a motion to correct errors from a conviction of second degree burglary. Cox testified that on March 6, 1972, he and Gulley were disposing of the garbage and trash, as was their daily routine, behind the jail when he left Gulley for three to five minutes to answer a telephone call. Cox had instructed Gulley to dump the trash in his absence. Upon returning to the area of the trash containers, Cox was unable to locate Gulley and received no answer upon calling for him. Cox further testified that Gulley did not have permission to leave the premises, nor did he have a court order to release Gulley from his custody. Gulley was not seen again by Sheriff Cox until March 28, 1972, in Savannah, Georgia, where Gulley had been taken into custody.
With respect to the first issue, it is contended by Gulley that the verdict is not supported by sufficient evidence upon all necessary elements of the offense for which he was convicted. More specifically, Gulley's contention is directed to the mens rea element of escape of which the Indiana Supreme Court recently stated:
'In a criminal prosecution for escape from jail or prison the appellee is required to prove the element of mens rea, i.e., that the prisoner intentionally and without authority left the custody of his jailor.' (Citing authorities). Utley v. State (1972), Ind., 281 N.E.2d 888, 892.
Gulley admits in his brief that the evidence most favorable to the State indicates that he left the custody of the jailor without authority. It is argued, however, that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intentionally left the custody of the jailor.
It is well established law in Indiana that intent is a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact from all the evidence. Stanley v. State (1969), 252 Ind. 37, 245 N.E.2d 149, Tait v. State (1963), 244 Ind. 35, 188 N.E.2d 537. Furthermore, intent may be inferred from circumstances which legitimately permit it. Stanley v. State, supra, Young v. State (1971), Ind., 273 N.E.2d 285, Robinson v. State (1971), Ind., 271 N.E.2d 727. It is our opinion that in the instant case there...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pier v. State
...it. Stanley v. State, supra; Young v. State (1971), , 273 N.E.2d 285; Robinson v. State (1971), , 271 N.E.2d 727." Gulley v. State (1973), 156 Ind.App. 15, 294 N.E.2d 630, 631. We conclude that there was sufficient evidence from which the trial judge could have concluded that Pier intended ......
-
Carpenter v. State
...it is incumbent upon the State in a jail breaking prosecution to prove that the defendant was in lawful confinement. Gulley v. State (1973), 156 Ind.App. 15, 294 N.E.2d 630. Defendant's argument of unlawful confinement relates to the following alleged defects surrounding his arrest for the ......
-
Hamp v. State
...from the custody of the officer lawfully in charge of such person.' And Judge Robertson of this court, in the case of Gulley v. State (1973), Ind.App., 294 N.E.2d 630, stated as '. . . A material element of the offense of jail breaking is that the defendant be 'lawfully confined . . . at th......
-
Powers v. State
...or infer that Powers had intentionally fled from detention. Grimes v. State (1983), Ind., 454 N.E.2d 388, 392; Gulley v. State (1973), 156 Ind.App. 15, 16, 294 N.E.2d 630, 631. II Powers claims the imposition of the habitual offender sentence enhancing his term of incarceration by thirty (3......