Lenovich v. State, No. 29498
| Docket Nº | No. 29498 |
| Citation | 238 Ind. 359, 150 N.E.2d 884 |
| Case Date | June 09, 1958 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Page 884
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
[238 Ind. 360]
Page 885
Myrten W. Davie and Robert J. Salek, LaPorte, for appellant.Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Owen S. Boling and Merl M. Wall, Dep. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
EMMERT, Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment on a verdict that appellant was guilty of automobile banditry as charged in the Second Count of an affidavit, for which he was sentenced to the Indiana State Prison for 10 years. Appellant pleaded not guilty, and filed a special plea of insanity under § 9-1701, Burns' 1956 Replacement. [238 Ind. 361] He assigns error in overruling his motion for a new trial.
Appellant's motion for a new trial maintains that the verdict was contrary to law and not supported by sufficient evidence. This court on appeal will not weigh the evidence when its sufficiency is questioned, but will examine the record to see if there is any evidence, or any reasonable inference which may be drawn from the evidence, which would sustain the verdict of the jury. Todd v. State, 1951, 230 Ind. 85, 87, 101 N.E.2d 922; Shacklett v. State, 1926, 197 Ind. 323, 150 N.E. 758; Osborn v. State,
Page 886
1927, 199 Ind. 44, 154 N.E. 865; Erfman v. State, 1935, 207 Ind. 673, 194 N.E. 326; McAdams v. State, 1948, 226 Ind. 403, 81 N.E.2d 671.The uncontradicted evidence from the transcript, which extends through 725 pages, shows the following facts: On the late evening of January 20, 1956, at about 11:30 o'clock appellant was a patron in Luebker Tavern located on the west side of LaPorte, Indiana. It was a cold night and a light snow covered the ground. At approximately 11:50 o'clock appellant, after having one bottle of beer, left the tavern and walked to the car he had been driving, which was parked behind other cars on a used car lot located across the street and south of Luebker Tavern, a distance of 300 to 400 feet. From this car appellant obtained a screw driver, pliers, and a small wrench. In his written confession appellant said he first walked toward town but then returned to the tavern after it had closed. He broke the front door glass and entered through the opening. Between 12:15 and 12:30 A.M., he was discovered inside the tavern by the LaPorte police. After he was apprehended the tools were found in his possession, in addition to $16.55, [238 Ind. 362] only $1.00 of which the appellant claimed as his money. Examination of the premises showed that cash had been removed from the cash register and the juke box had been broken. While being led to the police squad car appellant broke from the officer's grasp and ran a short distance before being apprehended again.
The statute defining automobile banditry provides: 'If any person or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shipman v. State, No. 29956
...387; Coffer v. State (1959), 239 Ind. 22, 154 N.E.2d 371; Leslie v. State (1959), 239 Ind. 462, 158 N.E.2d 654; Lenovich v. State (1958), 238 Ind. 359, 150 N.E.2d 884; Mack v. State (1957), 236 Ind. 468, 139 N.E.2d 434. We next consider appellant's contention that the trial court erred in a......
-
Bimbow v. State, No. 2--873A187
...time of trial and at the time of commission of the offense. Majors v. State (1974), Ind.App., 310 N.E.2d 283; Lenovich v. State (1958), 238 Ind. 359, 150 N.E.2d 884; Flowers v. State (1956), 236 Ind. 151, 139 N.E.2d 185; Brattain v. State (1945), 223 Ind. 489, 61 N.E.2d 462; Sharp v. State ......
-
Kaplan v. Tilles, Inc., No. 19321
...R. R. Co. v. Sholl et al., 128 Ind.App. 134, 146 N.E.2d 565; Bange v. State, 1958, 237 Ind. 422, 146 N.E.2d 811; Lenovich v. State, 1958, 238 Ind. 359, 150 N.E.2d Of course, the trial court is not required to state all the law in the case in each instruction given. 'All the instructions giv......
-
Hall v. State, No. 871S230
...committed. Burnett v. State (1970), Ind., 255 N.E.2d 529; Metz v. State (1963), 244 Ind. 536, 194 N.E.2d 617; Lenovich v. State (1958), 238 Ind. 359, 150 N.E.2d 884; McCoy v. State (1958), 237 Ind. 654, 148 N.E.2d 190; Barrick v. State (1954), 233 Ind. 333, 119 N.E.2d 550. In this case, no ......
-
Shipman v. State, No. 29956
...387; Coffer v. State (1959), 239 Ind. 22, 154 N.E.2d 371; Leslie v. State (1959), 239 Ind. 462, 158 N.E.2d 654; Lenovich v. State (1958), 238 Ind. 359, 150 N.E.2d 884; Mack v. State (1957), 236 Ind. 468, 139 N.E.2d 434. We next consider appellant's contention that the trial court erred in a......
-
Bimbow v. State, No. 2--873A187
...time of trial and at the time of commission of the offense. Majors v. State (1974), Ind.App., 310 N.E.2d 283; Lenovich v. State (1958), 238 Ind. 359, 150 N.E.2d 884; Flowers v. State (1956), 236 Ind. 151, 139 N.E.2d 185; Brattain v. State (1945), 223 Ind. 489, 61 N.E.2d 462; Sharp v. State ......
-
Kaplan v. Tilles, Inc., No. 19321
...R. R. Co. v. Sholl et al., 128 Ind.App. 134, 146 N.E.2d 565; Bange v. State, 1958, 237 Ind. 422, 146 N.E.2d 811; Lenovich v. State, 1958, 238 Ind. 359, 150 N.E.2d Of course, the trial court is not required to state all the law in the case in each instruction given. 'All the instructions giv......
-
Hall v. State, No. 871S230
...committed. Burnett v. State (1970), Ind., 255 N.E.2d 529; Metz v. State (1963), 244 Ind. 536, 194 N.E.2d 617; Lenovich v. State (1958), 238 Ind. 359, 150 N.E.2d 884; McCoy v. State (1958), 237 Ind. 654, 148 N.E.2d 190; Barrick v. State (1954), 233 Ind. 333, 119 N.E.2d 550. In this case, no ......