Litel v. State, 49S00-8706-CR-551
| Docket Nº | No. 49S00-8706-CR-551 |
| Citation | 527 N.E.2d 1114 |
| Case Date | September 06, 1988 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Page 1114
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).
Walter E. Bravard, Jr., Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., John D. Shuman, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
SHEPARD, Chief Judge.
Appellant Mike Joseph Litel was tried before a jury and convicted of battery, a class C felony, Ind.Code Sec. 35-42-2-1(3) (Burns 1985 Repl.), robbery, a class B felony, Ind.Code Sec. 35-42-5-1 (Burns 1985
Page 1115
Repl.), and two counts of confinement, a class B felony, Ind.Code Sec. 35-42-3-3(a) (Burns 1985 Repl.). The trial court sentenced him to concurrent terms of twenty years for each class B felony and eight years for the class C felony.Litel raises two issues in this direct appeal: whether the evidence is sufficient to support the verdicts, and whether the trial court erred in allowing the State to amend the information on the morning of trial. We affirm.
The evidence showed that Litel attended the Indiana State Fair with Cynthia Vie and Lisa Walters on the evening of August 19, 1983. They left at about midnight in Vie's car. Vie drove, Walters rode in the passenger seat, and Litel sat in the back.
En route to his home, Litel directed Vie to take a short-cut up University Avenue. The street came to a dead end, and Vie stopped. Litel then reached around Vie and placed a straight-edged razor at her throat. He told Vie to drive to Ellenberger Park and ordered Walters to take off her pants. When Walters hesitated, he threatened to kill Vie. Litel touched Vie's breasts and legs while she drove about at his direction. He told her to remove her pants. Finally, he directed her to park in the lot of a vacant service station.
Claiming that they needed to take off their shoes before they could comply with his orders, the girls shoved the front seat back and quickly ran from the car. They heard the screech of tires as they ran.
Vie's car was recovered that night. Relying on the girls' description, police apprehended Litel the next evening. They found Vie's keys and a straight-edged razor in his possession. Both Vie and Walters identified Litel from an array of photographs.
I. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Litel claims that the evidence does not support his convictions for confinement, battery or robbery. When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged, we will not reweigh the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pedrick v. State, 49A05-9108-CR-270
...therefrom and if there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the conviction, it will not be set aside. Litel v. State (1988), Ind., 527 N.E.2d 1114. In the case before us the facts permit an inference that Pedrick was using encouragement of the children as a mere pretext to ......
-
Moore v. State
...we will not reweigh it or assess the credibility of witnesses. Green v. State (1992), Ind., 587 N.E.2d 1314; Litel v. State (1988), 527 N.E.2d 1114, 1115. Reviewing solely the evidence and the reasonable inferences from that evidence that support the verdict, we decide whether there is subs......
-
Vehorn v. State, 49S00-9709-CR-491.
...of witnesses." Moore v. State, 652 N.E.2d 53, 55 (Ind.1995) (citing Green v. State, 587 N.E.2d 1314 (Ind.1992); Litel v. State, 527 N.E.2d 1114, 1115 (1988)). We review only the evidence presented at trial and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom that support the verdict in deciding "w......
-
Simmons v. State, 49A05-9107-CR-227
...if there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the conviction, it will not be set aside. Litel v. State (1988), Ind., 527 N.E.2d 1114. Simmons' attack on the sufficiency of the evidence is two-pronged. He first contends the convictions should be reversed because they are bas......