Hubbard v. State, 1282S512
Decision Date | 22 October 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 1282S512,1282S512 |
Parties | Robert M. HUBBARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Timothy R. Sendak, Crown Point, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Amy Schaeffer Good, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
This is a direct appeal from a conviction of robbery, a class A felony, Ind. Code Sec. 35-42-5-1. The case was tried before a jury. Appellant was sentenced to a prison term of thirty years.
Appellant raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred in tendering an instruction which concluded that voluntary intoxication is not a defense to robbery; (2) whether his thirty year sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
These are the facts that tend to support the determination of guilt. On April 20, 1982, David Mazan, accompanied by the appellant, Robert Hubbard, and Steve Anderson, drove in Mazan's vehicle to various taverns in the area of Hammond, Indiana. While in Mazan's vehicle, Hubbard and Anderson severely beat Mazan and pushed him into the backseat. Anderson started to drive toward Whiting, Indiana. Hubbard sat in the passenger seat and sharpened a butter knife on the pavement while the vehicle was traveling down the road. When they arrived at Whiting, Hubbard and Anderson removed Mazan from the vehicle and took him behind a building. Then, while Hubbard brandished the knife, Anderson demanded that Mazan give his money to him, and Mazan complied. Subsequently, they put Mazan back in the vehicle, and Anderson drove to a liquor store. After Anderson parked the vehicle, Mazan leaped out of the rear window of the vehicle and ran into the liquor store.
Michael Garrey, a security officer at the liquor store, observed Mazan enter the store. Mazan told Garrey of the robbery, and Garrey observed Anderson standing near the vehicle. Then, Hubbard and Anderson fled the area in Mazan's vehicle in the direction of Chicago, Illinois. Garrey recorded the license number of Mazan's vehicle and called the police.
Officers Joseph Bastie and Patrick Gleason of the Chicago Police Department heard on the radio information concerning the robbery and an advisement to watch for Mazan's 1970 brown Buick. While on patrol, they observed a vehicle which appeared similar to the description of Mazan's vehicle. The officers stopped the vehicle and arrested Hubbard and Anderson. Officer Gleason testified that, "... they had been drinking, but they were not intoxicated to the degree that they did not have the use of their mental facilities." Mazan's testimony indicated that Hubbard drank five to ten beers over a six hour period.
Appellant argues that the trial court erred in tendering an instruction which concluded that voluntary intoxication is not a defense to robbery. The challenged instruction is as follows:
This instruction parallels Ind. Code Sec. 35-41-3-5(b); however, this Court in Terry v. State, (1984) Ind., 465 N.E.2d 1085, declared that section of the statute void and without effect. A defendant in Indiana can offer a defense of voluntary intoxication to any crime. However, the potential of this defense should not be confused with the reality of the situation. Terry, supra. The standard of whether or not the evidence warrants an instruction on the defense of voluntary intoxication was set forth in Williams v. State, (1980) 273 Ind. 105, 402 N.E.2d 954:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Meisberger v. State, 53A01-9307-CR-243
...402 N.E.2d at 955. If it could do so, the refusal of an instruction is error. Id. Accord Gibson, 516 N.E.2d at 32-3; Hubbard v. State (1984), Ind., 469 N.E.2d 740, 742. The evidence of Meisberger's alcohol consumption and its intoxicating effects came almost entirely from Meisberger's own t......
-
Bowen v. State
...in Indiana can offer a defense of voluntary intoxication to any crime. Terry v. State (1984), Ind., 465 N.E.2d 1085; Hubbard v. State (1984), Ind., 469 N.E.2d 740; and Anderson v. State (1984), Ind., 469 N.E.2d 1166. However, the potential of this defense should not be confused with the rea......
-
McIntyre v. State
...956 (1980). Evidence that the defendant had merely been drinking is insufficient to raise the defense of intoxication, Hubbard v. State, 469 N.E.2d 740 (Ind.1984), and where the record contains no evidence that the defendant claimed an inability to form the requisite mens rea because of int......
-
Moriarty v. State
...As we have noted several times, the potential of this defense should not be confused with the reality of the situation. Hubbard v. State (1984), Ind., 469 N.E.2d 740; Terry v. State (1984), Ind., 465 N.E.2d 1085; Anderson v. State (1984), Ind., 469 N.E.2d 1166. Moriarty essentially challeng......