Jay v. State, 30593
| Docket Nº | No. 30593 |
| Citation | 246 Ind. 534, 206 N.E.2d 128 |
| Case Date | April 19, 1965 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Page 128
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
Rehearing Denied June 1, 1965.
See 207 N.E.2d 501.
[246 IND 535]
Page 129
John D. Clouse, Evansville, for appellants.Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Davis S. Wedding, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
LANDIS, Judge.
Appellants were charged by affidavit with first degree burglary and after a jury trial were convicted of entering to commit a felony for which they were sentenced one to ten years in the Indiana Reformatory.
Appellant Gipson has heretofore filed motion to dismiss the appeal as to him, and this Court has sustained said motion and the appeal is therefore dismissed as to appellant Gipson.
Appellant Jay first contends the verdict is contrary to law for the reason that there was insufficient evidence to prove the George Koch Realty Corporation owned the dwelling house burglarized. The affidavit in this respect charged that appellant
'* * * did * * * burglariously break and enter into the dwelling house of GEORGE KOCH REALTY CORPORATION, in which NOAH HARP then lived, with intent to commit a felony, to-wit: to unlawfully take, steal and carry away the goods, chattels and personal property of the said NOAH HARP.'
[246 IND 536] The evidence introduced at the trial fully supports the allegation in the affidavit that Noah Harp was in possession of the dwelling house burglarized. The evidence was therefore sufficient to sustain the verdict as against appellant's contention, for it is well settled that burglary is a crime against the possessory interest or rightful possession of the premises. See: Bradley v. State (1964), Ind., 195 N.E.2d 347, 349, and the discussion and authorities therein contained.
It is therefore immaterial that the evidence may not have sufficiently shown that the George Koch Realty Corporation was the owner of the house burglarized, and such allegation of the affidavit may be treated as surplusage.
Appellant further contends the court erred in overruling appellant's objection to a question propounded by appellee as to who was the owner of the property on 2001 West Ohio. However, it does not appear that this question was answered and therefore no question is before us as to the correctness of the court's ruling. See: Polson v. State (1965), (not yet reported); Henderson v. State (1956), 235 Ind. 132, 134, 131 N.E.2d 326, 327.
Appellant also contends it was error for the trial court to permit Alma Jean Farley, an alleged accomplice of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kindred v. State, No. 685S224
...only if there is a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. Miller v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 296, 268 N.E.2d 299; Jay v. State (1965), 246 Ind. 534, 206 N.E.2d 128. In determining whether good cause exists, the trial judge may look to the circumstances of the case as well as the allegations......
-
Bryan v. State, No. 281S48
...only if there is a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. Miller v. State, (1971) 256 Ind. 296, 268 N.E.2d 299; Jay v. State, (1965) 246 Ind. 534, 206 N.E.2d 128. In determining whether good cause exists, the trial judge may look to the circumstances of the case as well as the allegations......
-
Forrester v. State, No. 580S146
...*. "Third. Accomplices, when they consent to testify. * * *." The record of the accomplice's testimony is similar to Jay v. State, (1965) 246 Ind. 534, 206 N.E.2d 128 where we rejected a similar "Appellant complains that he was not permitted to make an offer of proof that the witness was an......
-
Phillips v. State, No. 2-478A119
...if there is a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. Miller v. State, (1971), 256 Ind. 296, 268 N.E.2d 299, 301; Jay v. State, (1965) 246 Ind. 534, 206 N.E.2d 128, 130; Blume v. State, (1963) 244 Ind. 121, 189 N.E.2d 568, 570. In determining whether good cause exists, the trial judge may ......
-
Kindred v. State, 685S224
...only if there is a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. Miller v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 296, 268 N.E.2d 299; Jay v. State (1965), 246 Ind. 534, 206 N.E.2d 128. In determining whether good cause exists, the trial judge may look to the circumstances of the case as well as the allegations......
-
Forrester v. State, 580S146
...*. "Third. Accomplices, when they consent to testify. * * *." The record of the accomplice's testimony is similar to Jay v. State, (1965) 246 Ind. 534, 206 N.E.2d 128 where we rejected a similar "Appellant complains that he was not permitted to make an offer of proof that the witness was an......
-
Bryan v. State, 281S48
...only if there is a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. Miller v. State, (1971) 256 Ind. 296, 268 N.E.2d 299; Jay v. State, (1965) 246 Ind. 534, 206 N.E.2d 128. In determining whether good cause exists, the trial judge may look to the circumstances of the case as well as the allegations......
-
Phillips v. State, 2-478A119
...if there is a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. Miller v. State, (1971), 256 Ind. 296, 268 N.E.2d 299, 301; Jay v. State, (1965) 246 Ind. 534, 206 N.E.2d 128, 130; Blume v. State, (1963) 244 Ind. 121, 189 N.E.2d 568, 570. In determining whether good cause exists, the trial judge may ......