Higgins v. State
| Decision Date | 08 December 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 30598,30598 |
| Parties | Arthur HIGGINS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Lewis Davis, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was charged by affidavit with the crime of first degree burglary. He was tried and convicted by a jury of the crime of entering with intent to commit a felony and sentenced accordingly. 1 Appellant assigns as error in this appeal the overruling of his motion for a new trial, which contained only the specifications that the verdict was contrary to law and not sustained by sufficient evidence. For this purpose we must briefly review the evidence under the established principle of appellate review that only the evidence most favorable to sustain the judgment will be considered. Beatty v. State (1963), Ind., 194 N.E.2d 727.
Evidence reveals that on January 26, 1963, Lawrence R. Heck arrived at his home and found Arthur Higgins, the appellant, inside his house, starting down the basement steps. He grabbed the appellant around the neck and held him and said: 'I don't know you' and shouted to his son to come. Heck asked the appellant what he was doing, and the appellant answered: 'Looking for a job.' Heck then said: 'That's a hell of a way to look for a job, breaking into a man's house.' The then asked him how he got in and the appellant said: '* * * Through the basement.' After some further conversation the sheriff was called and a deputy placed the appellant under arrest. Appellant claimed he had rung the bell at the back door, but the deputy sheriff and Heck at the time found no footprints (there was snow on the ground) around the back door. Appellant wanted to show Heck where his car was, but did not explain why it was parked over on another street (Franklin Road) when there was plenty of room to park at Heck's house. The appellant further stated he had just got out of jail and asked them:
From this evidence we feel the jury could reasonably have found the appellant guilty of entering the home of Heck with intent to commit a felony. His unexplained presence inside the home, along with his admissions, creates a reasonable inference of guilt. Harrison v. State (1964), Ind., 197 N.E.2d 770; Schweigel v. State (1964), Ind., 195 N.E.2d 848; Tait v. State (1963), Ind., 188 N.E.2d 537.
Appellant makes the further contention that the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to give defendant's instruction No. 3. We need not set that instruction out here for the reason that appellant has not saved this alleged error by specifying the refusal to give the instruction in the motion for a new trial. Bays v. State (1959), 240 Ind. 37, 159 N.E.2d 393.
Appellant, however, makes the plea that this is a pauper appeal and for that reason the proper procedure for raising such alleged error on appeal should be ignored in his case. Our answer to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crawford v. State
...to determine which inference should have controlled, that being exclusively for the trial court. (Citing cases)' In Higgins v. State (1964), 246 Ind. 62, 202 N.E.2d 569, a case with an almost identical set of facts was presented to this Court. In that case a home owner came home suddenly an......
-
Easton v. State
...no statement or admission was ever made by the appellant that he intended to do so. The appellee State cites the case of Higgins v. State (1964), Ind., 202 N.E.2d 569, as being controlling in this case quoting therefrom as '* * * His unexplained presence inside the home, along with his admi......
-
Beard v. State
...finding that Beard entered with the intent to steal the money. Maydwell v. State (1967), 248 Ind. 270, 226 N.E.2d 322; Higgins v. State (1964), 246 Ind. 62, 202 N.E.2d 569; Harrison v. State (1964),245 Ind. 336, 197 N.E.2d Crawford v. State (1968), 251 Ind. 437, 241 N.E.2d 795, a 3--2 decis......
-
Petition of Stillabower, 0-774
...(1964), Ind., 195 N.E.2d 352, reh. denied Ind., 198 N.E.2d 229, cert. denied 380 U.S. 981, 85 S.Ct. 1345, 14 L.Ed.2d 274; Higgins v. State (1964), Ind., 202 N.E.2d 569. Indiana procedure appears to be considerably more liberal in its concern for a defendant in a criminal case than the Feder......