Hansen v. State, No. 28795

• Docket Nº: No. 28795
• Citation: 230 Ind. 635, 106 N.E.2d 226
• Case Date: May 29, 1952
• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

Page 226

106 N.E.2d 226 230 Ind. 635 HANSEN
v.
STATE. No. 28795. Supreme Court of Indiana. May 29, 1952.

[230 Ind. 638]

Page 227

William C. Erbecker, Indianapolis, for appellant.

J. Emmett McManamon, Atty. Gen., John Ready O'Connor, William T. McClain, Deputies Atty. Gen., for appellee.

BOBBITT, Judge.

Appellant was charged by indictment with the crime of robbery under Acts of 1905, ch. 169, § 224, p. 584, § 9-102, Burns' 1942 Replacement, tried by jury and found guilty of the crime of grand larceny and sentenced to the Indiana Reformatory for not less than one (1) nor more than ten (10) years and fined in the sum of one hundred dollars ($100).

The sole error here assigned is the overruling of appellant's motion for a new trial. Nineteen causes for a new trial are specified in said motion.

The errors specified by causes numbered 4, 6, 7, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of said motion are waived becuase of the [230 Ind. 639] failure of appellant to discuss them in his brief and to cite authorities or give reasons why such alleged acts constituted error. Rule 2-17, Supreme Court of Indiana, 1947 Revision, as amended. Slack v. Grisby, 1951, 229 Ind. 335, 97 N.E.2d 145, 147; Slaughter v. State, 1936, 209 Ind. 658, 660, 199 N.E. 244.

Causes numbered 8, 10 and 17 are without merit worthy of consideration.

Causes numbered 2, 3, 5, 9, 11, 12, 18 and 19 will be considered in their numerical order.

First: By cause numbered 2 appellant contends that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence.

This court has said many times that it will not weigh evidence, but will examine the record to determine whether there is any evidence of probative value, or any reasonable inferences which may be

Page 228

properly drawn therefrom, which would sustain the verdict of the jury or the decision of the trial court and, if any such is found, they will not be disturbed. Mattingly v. State, 1952, Ind.Sup., 104 N.E.2d 721, 723.

From the evidence in the record, most favorable to the appellee, and the inferences to be properly drawn therefrom, it appears that appellant knew of the substantial amount of money the victim, a taxicab driver, was carrying in his bill-fold; that on the night of the robbery Heady and Brown, who robbed the taxi driver, contacted appellant who, together with the other defendant, Coghill, told them about the taxi driver having at least three hundred dollars in money and the number of his cab. They (appellant and Coghill) then gave Brown a .32 caliber revolver, then 'took Heady and Brown back up town' where they went to [230 Ind. 640] the corner of Washington and Illinois Streets and found the taxicab bearing the number given them by appellant and the other defendant. Heady and Brown then engaged the taxi driver to take them to Beech Grove where they robbed him of some $1200. Immediately after the robbery they made their way back to Indianapolis to the Hoosier Hotel. After arriving at the hotel they engaged a room and again contacted appellant who came to the room where they divided the money taken from the taxi driver, appellant taking $600, and leaving $600 for Heady and Brown. Appellant then left, taking with him the $600 and the .32 caliber revolver which he and Coghill had procured for Heady and Brown before the robbery. There was other evidence supporting the foregoing and from which the jury might properly infer that appellant counseled, advised and aided Heady and Brown in executing the robbery which they committed. This was all that the state was required to prove to sustain appellant's conviction under § 9-102, supra, and the evidence was, therefore, sufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury. Hoy v. State, 1949, 227 Ind. 346, 85 N.E.2d 493; Evans v. State, 1946, 224 Ind. 428, 68 N.E.2d 546; Simpson v. State, 1925, 195 Ind. 633, 146 N.E. 747. See also: Workman v. State, 1939, 216 Ind. 68, 21 N.E.2d 712, 23 N.E.2d 419; Breaz v. State, 1938, 214 Ind. 31, 13 N.E.2d 952.

Appellant questions the probative value of certain evidence because it springs from the testimony of an admitted criminal. While a conviction may be had solely upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, Walker v. State, 1934, 206 Ind. 232, 189 N.E. 127;...