Hancock v. State, 670S126
| Decision Date | 23 April 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 670S126,670S126 |
| Citation | 268 N.E.2d 743,256 Ind. 337 |
| Parties | Darrell Robert HANCOCK, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
George A. Purvis, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., J. Frank Hanley, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was charged by affidavit with theft of a pump valued at $500. Trial by court resulted in a finding of guilty as charged. Subsequently the court entered judgment sentencing the appellant to the Indiana State Reformatory for not less than one nor more than ten years with a fine of $500 and costs.
The facts disclosed by the record are as follows:
State's Witness Ed Hinkle testified that he was employed as a superintendent for S & C Excavators. That on April 13, 1968, he was in charge of the company's equipment. In the afternoon of that date before leaving the construction site he placed the pump in question under a high lift bucket. When he returned to the job site at approximately 7:30 the next morning, the pump was missing. He testified without objection that the pump was worth $500.
State's Witness Thomas Mosely testified that on or about April 13 he was operating a bulldozer at a dump when the appellant and two others approached him with the offer to sell the pump in question. Their asking price was $250; however, after some dickering with Mosely, he purchased the pump from the appellant and his companions for $150.
The appellant first contends that there was a total lack of evidence to establish the value of the pump. Therefore, a failure to establish that it exceeded the value of $100, which was required under Burns' Ind.Stat.Ann., 1970 Supp., § 10--3039, I.C.1971, 35--17--5--12, before the appellant could be found guilty and sentenced as in this case. Appellant argues that the State failed to lay a foundation for the testimony of the Witness Hinkle as to value. This may be true; however, we are not called to pass upon this question for two reasons: first, the appellant did not object at the time Hinkle's testimony was offered. Secondly, there is ample evidence in the record through the testimony of Witness Mosely that the appellant and his companions placed a value of $250 on the pump in their initial offer to sell and that after discussion with Mosely agreed to and in fact did sell the pump to Mosely for $150. Thus, there is ample evidence in the record to establish that the pump had a value of at least $150. It is immaterial that the charging affidavit alleged the value to be $500. It is not the exact value of goods which the State is required to prove, but whether the value of goods exceeds $100. Willoughby v. State...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gaddie v. State
...rise to an inference that the possessor either committed the theft or had knowledge of the character of the property. Hancock v. State (1971) 256 Ind. 337, 268 N.E.2d 743; Bolton v. State (1970) 254 Ind. 648, 261 N.E.2d 841." Id., 330 N.E.2d at However, Taylor, Hancock and Bolton all deal w......
-
Williams v. State
...we therefore reverse the trial court's conviction of Williams. Reversed. ROBB, J., and DARDEN, J., concur. 1. Citing Hancock v. State, 256 Ind. 337, 268 N.E.2d 743 (1971) (on same day goods were stolen defendant attempted to sell them); Vaughn v. State, 255 Ind. 678, 266 N.E.2d 219 (1971) (......
-
Griffin v. State
...overruling Ledbetter's motion to dismiss. And we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. Hancock v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 337, 268 N.E.2d 743. Judgment ROBERTSON, C.J., and LYBROOK, J., concur. 1 IC 1971, 35--17--5--3 and 35--17--5--12(1) (Burns Code Ed.)2 See ......
-
Morgan v. State
...the recency determination. Thus, where the elapsed time is short, that fact in itself makes the possession recent. Hancock v. State, (1971) 256 Ind. 337, 268 N.E.2d 743 (Defendant attempted to sell stolen goods later in the day on which they were stolen); Vaughn v. State, (1971) 255 Ind. 67......