Humphrey v. State, 2--275A41
| Decision Date | 22 October 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 2--275A41,2--275A41 |
| Citation | 166 Ind.App. 299,335 N.E.2d 629 |
| Parties | Charles HUMPHREY, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Stephen J. Cuthbert, Public Defender, Lafayette, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Robert F. Alden, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Before SULLIVAN, P.J., and BUCHANAN, and WHITE, JJ.
Pursuant to Indiana Rules of Procedure for Post-Conviction Remedies, Rule 2, Humphrey appeals his Second Degree Burglary conviction. His attack is directed solely to the sufficiency of the evidence.
We affirm.
The evidence of record, together with the inferences which might be reasonably drawn therefrom discloses:
On August 28, 1973, an automatic alarm system was activated alerting Lafayette police that the Arth Drug Store in Lafayette was being entered. Several police cars immediately responded to the radio dispatch, and the arriving officers noticed that the front doors had been pried open.
Several officers entered the store and found Humphrey behind the counter holding an empty drug bottle with numerous other drugs strewn around him. A tire tool was lying directly beside him on the floor. The drug cabinet from which the drugs had been taken evidenced that it had been forced open.
The store manager who was called to the scene testified that he had previously closed and locked all the doors and set the alarm system. When he arrived, he noticed that the front door had been forced open. A subsequent investigation revealed that 37 Dilaudid tablets (an opium derivative) were missing.
The elements of second degree burglary are: (1) breaking (2) and entering (3) into a building or structure other than a dwelling house or place of human habitation (4) with intent to commit a felony therein. Cook v. State (1972), 258 Ind. 667, 284 N.E.2d 81; Reas v. State (1975), Ind.App., 323 N.E.2d 274; Gorbett v. State (1974), Ind.App., 318 N.E.2d 592.
It is well settled that felonious intent at the time of the entry may be inferred from acts committed after entry. Farno v. State (1974), Ind.App., 308 N.E.2d 724; Smith v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 603, 271 N.E.2d 133.
The evidence in the present case amply supports a reasonable inference that Humphrey forcibly entered the building with intent to commit a felony. Chappell v. State (1972), 258 Ind. 537, 282 N.E.2d 810.
Defendant's further contention that the value of the missing Dilaudid tablets was not proved to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. State
...Goldie Jones is without merit. The element of intent may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the entry. Humphrey v. State (1975), Ind.App., 335 N.E.2d 629, 630. Lee was wearing a fake beard and had in his possession a toy gun at the time of the unlawful entry and arrest. When Lee......
-
Lamb v. Conder
... ... 296] court ... shall find the facts specially and state its conclusions thereon.' ... The Sisters concede that they did not request special ... ...