Mason v. State
| Decision Date | 08 July 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 30219,30219 |
| Citation | 191 N.E.2d 705,244 Ind. 206 |
| Parties | Frank Joseph MASON, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Arthur S. Wilson, Princeton, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Carl Van Dorn, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was charged with the crime of grand larceny, of which charge he was found guilty.
Appellant divides his argument into three major sections:
1) That the court erred in overruling the motion to quash the affidavit and in overruling the motion to arrest the judgment.
2) The court erred in admitting state's Exhibits 2 and 3, which was the money taken from a car owned and operated by one Carter, in which car Mason was riding, and money taken from the persons of Carter and Mason at the time of their arrest.
3) That the evidence was insufficient to identify the appellant as one of the persons who had committed the crime.
We will consider the above issues in the order presented:
one: In support of the motion to quash the affidavit and to arrest judgment, appellant, asserts that the affidavit was defective because of uncertainty and, therefore, subject to a motion to quash, and, further, that it wholly failed to state any public offense, and, therefore, it was suject to a motion to arrest the judgment. Both motions are grounded on the fact that although the affidavit alleged that the amount taken was $1,975.00 in 'lawful currency of the United States of America,' it is contended that the affidavit must allege that the amount taken was in 'money.' Appellant's contention is not well taken for two reasons: (1) The terms 'lawful currency of the United States of America' is more specific than the term 'money,' and, therefore, was sufficient to inform the defendant as to the charge against him and to constitute a valid charge under the statute. Furthermore, neither of the above asserted errors was included in appellant's motion for new trial, as a ground therefor, as required by Rule 2-6 of this court. Therefore, the overruling of the motion to quash and arrest judgment was not properly asserted as cause for appeal.
Two: Appellant's contentions 2 and 3 involved a consideration of the evidence and, therefore, we here recite the evidence most favorable to the state.
Lawrence Dipple was a part owner and manager of the Shop-Ezy Market, Inc., at Princeton, Indiana. On the night of August 18, 1961, at about 11:30 he checked out the store and left for his home. He took with him the day's receipts, consisting of an undetermined amount in checks, and $1,975.00 in paper currency, consisting of sixty $20 bills, fifty $10 bills, forty $5 bills and seventy-five $1 bills. These he put in a leather pouch, which pouch in turn he put in a bag of groceries which he was taking home, and for that purpose put them on the floor of his car in front of the back seat. A few minutes later he parked his car in downtown Princeton, where he visited a tavern, leaving the groceries and the money in his car which he had locked.
Mason, who had been employed by Dipple ever since he bought the store in 1960 as a cleanup and stock man, was the only negro employed in the store. He knew of Dipple's practice of taking the receipts from the store home with him at night. About 11:35 two teen age boys observed two colored men approach Dipple's car with a crowbar. One was taller than the other and wore a light colored cap. The men stopped on the opposite side of the car near the sidewalk. The boys heard glass breaking. The taller of the two men, who was wearing a light colored cap, stuck his hand into the car and then crawled inside. Very shortly thereafter they left the car, 'kind of trotting' down the street where they went into a parking lot. When Dipple returned to the car at about 2:20 A.M., it had been broken into and the money taken.
A check was made by police at Mason's home, but he was not there. At 2:45 he was in a restaurant with Carter. There he had in his possession a large amount of cash, in $20, $10, $5 and $1.00 bills, substantially in excess of $350.00, of which he 'loaned' Carter $100.
At about 3:30 A.M. police stopped a car, owned and driven by Clifton Carter, in which Mason was riding. The sack of groceries belonging to Dipple was found between Carter and Mason on the front...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v. State, 31005
...between the description and the appearance of the accused, the relevant upon the question of identity.' In Mason v. State (1963), 244 Ind. 206, 211, 191 N.E.2d 705, 708 this Court "It is not essential, in order to sustain the conviction of appellant, that he should have been identified at t......
-
Ellis v. State, 169
...an identification may be established by circumstantial evidence. Craig v. State (1908), 171 Ind. 317, 86 N.E. 397; Mason v. State (1963), 244 Ind. 206, 191 N.E.2d 705. The evidence presented in the trial court is uncontradicted. An eyewitness saw a man dressed like the appellant depart thro......
-
Finch v. State
...question. It is sufficient if the identification is established by circumstantial evidence which satisfies the jury. Mason v. State (1963), 244 Ind. 206, 191 N.E.2d 705. The unexplained possession of recently stolen goods in the hands of a defendant is sufficient to sustain a conviction of ......
-
Hallums v. State, 30997
...there was sufficient evidence, together with all reasonable inferences, to sustain the finding of the trial court. Mason v. State (1963), 244 Ind. 206, 191 N.E.2d 705; Donaldson v. State (1952), 231 Ind. 434, 108 N.E.2d 888; Gilmore v. State (1951), 229 Ind. 359, 98 N.E.2d The judgment of t......