Hill v. State
| Decision Date | 12 August 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 880S228,880S228 |
| Parties | Richard HILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Richard M. Salb, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Palmer K. Ward, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Richard Hill was convicted after trial by jury of robbery, a class A felony, Ind.Code § 35-42-5-1, and criminal confinement, a class D felony, Ind.Code § 35-42-3-3. He was sentenced to thirty years' imprisonment on the robbery count and two years' imprisonment on the confinement count, the sentences to run concurrently.
On direct appeal, Hill raises the sole issue of whether the trial court erred in not granting his motion for judgment on the evidence as to the robbery, class A felony count. He claims that the evidence on the robbery count showed only a class C robbery and that the case should have been submitted to the jury only as a class C felony.
The robbery statute provides:
"A person who knowingly or intentionally takes property from another person or from the presence of another person:
(1) By using or threatening the use of force on any person; or
(2) By putting any person in fear;
commits robbery, a class C felony. However, the offense is a class B felony if it is committed while armed with a deadly weapon, and a class A felony if it results in either bodily injury or serious bodily injury to any other person." Ind.Code § 35-42-5-1.
The evidence shows that Hill robbed Williamson, a taxi-cab driver. Williamson immediately began chasing Hill and was assisted in the chase by a passer-by, Bartlett, who was an off-duty private security officer. Bartlett grabbed Hill and wrestled him to the ground. Hill struck Bartlett on the forehead with the toy gun he used when robbing Williamson, inflicting a 1/4 laceration for which Bartlett did not seek medical treatment.
The issue is whether the injury to Bartlett, who was not the victim of the robbery, could give rise to Hill's liability for the class A felony.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garner v. State
...1263. The latter situation existed, according to the court, because Clay v. State (1981), 275 Ind. 256, 416 N.E.2d 842 and Hill v. State (1981), Ind., 424 N.E.2d 999, the cases creating the basis of his claim, had not been decided at the time of Bailey's trial: "In the instant case, the [in......
-
Bailey v. State
...the time of his trial and direct appeal. Appellant relies on this Court's subsequent interpretation of the robbery statute in Hill v. State, (1981) 424 N.E.2d 999 and Clay v. State, (1981) Ind., 416 N.E.2d 842. We found that "The Legislature intended to make robbery a class A felony in two ......
-
Heyward v. State
..."bodily injury" results to the person being robbed, and (2) when "serious bodily injury" results to any other person. Hill v. State (1981), Ind., 424 N.E.2d 999, 999-1000; Clay v. State (1981), 275 Ind. 256, 259, 416 N.E.2d 842, 844. The state argues that a non-victim need suffer only "bodi......
-
Gatewood v. State
...that any bodily injury suffered by the person robbed is sufficient to elevate the robbery to class A felony status. Cf., Hill v. State, (1981) Ind., 424 N.E.2d 999 (injury to bystander must be "serious" in order for class A felony status to Defendant attempts to distinguish Clay on the basi......