Mack v. State
| Decision Date | 22 January 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 29399,29399 |
| Citation | 139 N.E.2d 434,236 Ind. 468 |
| Parties | Cornelius MACK, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Rufus C. Kuykendall, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Owen S. Boling, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This is an appeal from a conviction of the appellant for the offense of robbery while armed.
Appellant was charged with entering the Stop and Shop Super Market in Indianapolis with two other men on the morning of November 22, 1952.
Appellant filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled. Appellant contends that the decision is contrary to law because of the lack of evidence to sustain the decision.
The appellee has challenged the sufficiency of appellant's assignment of error. However, we have elected to decide the case on its merits.
At the time of the holdup, witness Ronald Gold was sacking witness Officer Metzger's groceries near the exit of the market. One of the bandits went into the cashier's office, while a second of the trio stood holding a gun within a few feet of Gold, and the third bandit struck Officer Metzger, who was in civilian clothes, over the head as the latter drew a gun. Gold had an opportunity to closely observe the latter two bandits, and identified appellant as the man who struck Officer Metzger. He also testified that he had identified appellant from a photograph exhibited to him approximately three months after the robbery.
However, appellant contends that the above evidence is without probative value as to the accused's identity because of the immature age of the witness at the time of the holdup and the conflicting evidence which appears in the record with regard to Gold's testimony.
First, appellant points to the fact that Officer Davenport, who investigated the case and was a witness for the state, testified that Gold was not able to identify the appellant from a photograph exhibited to him. However, this statement does not necessarily discredit Gold's testimony. The record is not clear that the two witnesses were discussing the same photograph or that the circumstances of identification were the same. It may well be that the jury resolved this asserted conflict on this basis. And, even though this testimony was in conflict, it was the responsibility of the jury to resolve such conflict and to give that weight to the testimony of each witness which they considered it rightfully deserved.
Secondly, appellant contends that Gold's testimony is discredited by the testimony of his alibi witnesses who stated that he was at White Rose Tavern at Phoenix, Cook County, Illinois, gambling at the time of the robbery. However, such fact was contradicted by appellant, himself, who told a police officer who escorted him from Chicago to Indianapolis that he was working...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shipman v. State
...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 admitting certain testimony on re-direct examination. ......
-
Epps v. State
...of probative value from which a reasonable inference of the guilt of the accused could be drawn, and cites as authority Mack v. State (1957), 236 Ind. 468, 139 N.E.2d 434, and Todd v. State (1951), 230 Ind. 85, 101 N.E.2d The evidence most favorable to the State is as follows: On November 6......
-
Marx v. State
... ... 1 The following Indiana cases expressly or by implication recognize this salutory rule for deciding appeals: Thompson v. State, 1946, 224 Ind. 290, 66 N.E.2d 597; Wilson v. State, 1943, 222 Ind. 63, 51 N.E.2d 848; Keeshin Motor Express Co. v. Glassman, 1942, 219 Ind. 538, 38 N.E.2d 847; Mack v. State, 1932, 203 Ind. 355, 180 N.E. 279, 83 A.L.R. 1349; State ex rel. Garn ... ...
-
Banks v. State
...v. State (1977), 266 Ind. 622, 366 N.E.2d 165; Hale v. State (1967), 248 Ind. 630, 230 N.E.2d 432. Moreover, in Mack v. State (1957), 236 Ind. 468, 139 N.E.2d 434, our supreme court observed that "It is firmly settled ... that a material fact at issue may be established by hearsay evidence,......