Janigon v. State
| Decision Date | 15 January 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 88OS359,88OS359 |
| Citation | 429 N.E.2d 959 |
| Parties | Linnie JANIGON, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Charles F. Leonard, Deputy Public Defender, Fort Wayne, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Aimee L. Kolze, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Appellant was tried by a jury with his co-defendant for the offense of Robbery. He was convicted and sentenced to a twenty (20) year term of imprisonment.
Appellant claims the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This Court will not weigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. We look solely to the evidence most favorable to the State and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. If there is substantial evidence of probative value for each element of the offense, we will not disturb the jury's verdict. Sloan v. State, (1980) Ind., 408 N.E.2d 1264.
The State produced three witnesses to the robbery of Hooks Drugs: the pharmacist, the cashier and a customer. The pharmacist testified he could not identify anyone in the courtroom as the man giving instructions to the cashier during the robbery. He identified appellant as one of two individuals who participated in a show-up immediately following the robbery. However, the pharmacist stated he did not see appellant inside the store during the robbery. The cashier was unable to identify appellant as being the man who robbed her or as a man who had entered the store during the robbery and left after saying he did not want to get involved.
The customer, Mr. Wood, testified he saw appellant "walking, like pacing, back and forth ... looking around the store." Wood stated he entered the store, saw appellant, and went to the pharmacy counter located at the rear of the store. One of the robbers ordered him behind the counter while the pharmacist gathered money and drugs. The robber then instructed the pharmacist and Mr. Wood to go to the front of the store. Mr. Wood testified appellant was not in the aisle at that time nor, to his knowledge present in the store. Mr. Wood also identified appellant as one of the men brought back to the drugstore for the show-up.
The record reveals one male was seen running on foot after having fired a shot. Although the State characterizes appellant's apprehension as being made while "in flight", and therefore, circumstantially indicative of guilt; the arresting officer testified appellant did...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Wright v. State
-
Wilson v. State, 183S10
...at the scene of a crime, without more, cannot serve as evidence to support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Janigon v. State, (1982) Ind., 429 N.E.2d 959; Cline v. State, (1969) 253 Ind. 264, 252 N.E.2d 793. We disagree with appellant's analysis of the evidence in the case at bar. Th......
-
Dillon v. State
...than his presence at the scene of a crime, a showing that without more is also insufficient to support a conviction. See, Janigon v. State, (1982) Ind., 429 N.E.2d 959. We disagree. In reviewing the evidence that supports a conviction we look at all the evidence in support thereof. Rowan v.......
-
Clark v. State
...claim, this is not a case where one's presence at the scene of the crime was the only incriminating circumstance. Eg., Janigon v. State, (1982) Ind., 429 N.E.2d 959. Moreover, under our standard of review for sufficiency challenges, we cannot, as Defendant would have us to do, draw the asse......