Mauricio v. State, Nos. 683S203

Docket NºNos. 683S203
Citation476 N.E.2d 88
Case DateApril 02, 1985
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 88

476 N.E.2d 88
Mark MAURICIO and Arnold Mauricio, Jr., Appellants,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
Nos. 683S203, 683S213.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
April 2, 1985.

Page 89

Jerrald A. Crowell, Bowman, Crowell & Teeters, Fort Wayne, for appellants.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Louis E. Ransdell, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

PIVARNIK, Justice.

Defendant-Appellant Mark J. Mauricio was found guilty by a jury in the Allen Circuit Court of Count I, Murder, and Count II, felony murder. The trial judge sentenced him only for the felony murder conviction in Count II, to a term of sixty (60) years.

Defendant-Appellant Arnold Mauricio, Jr., was found guilty by a jury in the Allen Circuit Court of Count I, aiding felony murder, and Count II, robbery. Arnold Mauricio, Jr., subsequently was sentenced by the trial judge on the aiding a felony murder charge in Count I, to a term of thirty (30) years.

Mark Mauricio presents only the issue of sufficiency of the evidence in this direct appeal.

Arnold Mauricio, Jr., raises six issues as follows:

1. failure of the information to properly charge felony murder;

2. sufficiency of the evidence;

3. improper identification procedure of Officer Lalone;

4. failure to prove armed robbery as charged;

5. improper consolidation of trials of defendants; and

6. violation by State of discovery orders.

On February 3, 1982, Nancy A. Rehm, the decedent, Rhonda Unverferth, and Joann Wenning were students at Indiana Institute of Technology in Fort Wayne, Indiana. That day the three girls left basketball practice at the school around 8:00 p.m. They rode two snowmobiles owned by Nancy Rehm's father en route to the Rehm home. A police officer stopped them, gave them a ticket for riding snowmobiles on a public street, and ordered them to cease

Page 90

doing so. They called Nancy's father and waited on a snowbank for him to arrive and take the snowmobiles home. As they waited, two men approached them and asked who owned the snowmobiles. The girls ignored the question. One of the men, identified as the shorter of the two, Mark Mauricio, repeated the question, to which Nancy Rehm answered; "Mine." Mark and Arnold Mauricio then approached the vehicles and Mark ordered the girls to start them. The women initially thought the defendants were joking with them, but changed their minds and stood between the defendants and the snowmobiles. Defendant Mark Mauricio and victim Nancy Rehm engaged in a shoving match. Mark pulled a gun from his pocket and fired it into the ground. Again, Mark Mauricio ordered the victim to start the snowmobile, but she refused. While Rhonda Underferth and Joann Wenning ran toward their dormitory, they heard two more shots. Joann Wenning continued to the dormitory for help while Rhonda Unverferth returned to Nancy. When Rhonda reached the scene, defendant Mark Mauricio and the victim were still struggling over the vehicles and the taller one, Arnold Mauricio, was sitting on one of the two snowmobiles. Rhonda pushed Arnold off the vehicle and grabbed the keys. Arnold then got on the other snowmobile, started it, and drove south on Schick Street. Rhonda chased him but could not catch him. When she came back, victim Nancy Rehm was face up in the middle of the street with a gunshot wound in the head. Mark Mauricio was not in sight.

Joann Wenning brought security guard Keith Leroy Williams to the scene at about 9:15 p.m. Williams said it appeared to him that Nancy was dead. He ordered nearby students to call the police and for an ambulance. He then found tracks leading from the body into a nearby alley. There were no other fresh tracks around. When he reached the entrance to the alley he observed someone get up from a crouching position and run down the alley. Williams chased through the alley and around some buildings, following fresh tracks in the snow. He lost the trail behind an abandoned house. The tracks in the snow had led to this point. The officers returned Mark Mauricio to the scene where both Joann Wenning and Rhonda Unverferth identified him as the defendant with the gun. Rhonda described the taller man as being noticeably taller than Mark, wearing dark jeans, a brown wool plaid jacket and a black ski mask with eyeholes and no colored trim. She was unable to see either of their faces because of the ski masks, but identified Mark from the clothes he was wearing and his body frame. She had no doubt about her identification. Joann also described both of the men by the clothes they were wearing. She was further able to identify Mark Mauricio by the sound of his voice.

At approximately 9:30 p.m., Fort Wayne police officer Robert L. Lalone was riding north in a tow truck due to a snow emergency and observed a young man riding a snowmobile. He ordered the person to get off the streets with the snowmobile. Three or four minutes later he received the police report of the shooting. The snowmobile was later found on the same street, within a block of Arnold Mauricio's home. Officer Lalone identified Arnold Mauricio as the driver of the snowmobile stopped the night of this incident. Nancy Rehm died the next day from brain destruction caused by the gunshot wound.

I

Arnold Mauricio, Jr., was charged in Count I with knowingly and intentionally aiding Mark Mauricio in the commission of the offense of attempted robbery in which said Mark Mauricio did then and there unlawfully kill Nancy A. Rehm by shooting at and against the said Nancy A. Rehm with a certain deadly weapon, to-wit, a handgun, and thereby inflicting a mortal wound in and upon the said Nancy Rehm causing her to die on February 4, 1982. This information charges Arnold Mauricio, Jr., with aiding, inducing or causing an offense pursuant to Ind.Code Sec. 35-41-2-4 (Burns Repl.1979) by aiding Mark Mauricio in the crime

Page 91

of felony murder pursuant to Ind.Code Sec. 35-42-1-1(2) (Burns Repl.1979).

Arnold Mauricio complains that the information in Count I did not sufficiently set out the details of the robbery, the underlying felony. We disagree. There is no lack of notice to defendant Arnold Mauricio, Jr., as to the underlying crime with which he was charged. He was charged in Count II with theft of a snowmobile. Other charges against brother Mark Mauricio clearly spelled out that Mark Mauricio was charged with attempted robbery of snowmobiles belonging to the victim. Arnold Mauricio, Jr., does not dispute that a snowmobile was stolen, he claims only that he did not perpetrate the act. There was sufficient description in all of the charges against these defendants, including Count II against Arnold Mauricio, Jr., from which it is apparent what the charges were and which would foreclose any further charges on the same subject presenting a double jeopardy problem. The purpose of an affidavit is to advise the defendant of the particular crime charged so he can prepare a defense. Keel v. State, (1975) 165 Ind.App. 579, 333 N.E.2d 328, reh. denied. A defect in an affidavit is grounds for reversal only where it prejudices the substantial rights of the defendant. Thorne v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 70, 292 N.E.2d 607; Gubitz v. State, (1977) 172 Ind.App. 343, 354; 360 N.E.2d 259, 267, trans. denied. No reasonable interpretation of the facts surrounding this information could lead to any conclusion other than Arnold Mauricio, Jr., was aware of the nature of the charge against him. Therefore, his due process rights were not violated. In Smith v. State, (1983) Ind., 445 N.E.2d 998, this Court held that absence of detail in an information is fatal to the information only if such phraseology misleads the defendant or fails to give him notice of the charges against him. The information in Count I in conjunction with Count II fails in neither of these regards. We therefore find no reversible error on this issue.

II

Both defendants Mark and Arnold Mauricio claim there was insufficient evidence of probative value to support the jury's convictions.

Our standard of reviewing a sufficiency question has been clearly delineated in Anderson v. State, (1984) Ind., 469 N.E.2d 1166, 1169, as follows:

"When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence this Court will not weigh the evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses. Rather, we will consider only that evidence which is favorable to the State, together with all logical and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. The verdict will be upheld so long as there is sufficient evidence of probative value from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (citations omitted)."

Mark Mauricio was positively identified by Rhonda Unverferth and Joann Wenning immediately after this incident. They identified him by his clothing, general appearance, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 practice notes
  • Hines v. State, No. 52S05–1408–CR–563.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • May 19, 2015
    ...960 (Ind.1992) ; Mahone v. State, 541 N.E.2d 278, 280 (Ind.1989) ; Eddy v. State, 496 N.E.2d 24, 27–28 (Ind.1986) ; Mauricio v. State, 476 N.E.2d 88, 92 (Ind.1985) ; Thompson v. State, 441 N.E.2d 192, 194 (Ind.1982) ; Stroud v. State, 272 Ind. 12, 14, 395 N.E.2d 770, 771 (1979) ; see also Y......
  • Outback Steakhouse of Florida v. Markley, No. 18S04-0602-CV-66.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 8, 2006
    ...by the plaintiff's argument. Id. at 1264; see also McCullough v. Archbold, 605 N.E.2d 175, 179 (Ind.1993) (citing Mauricio v. State, 476 N.E.2d 88, 95 (Ind.1985) (De Bruler, J., dissenting) ("The State may not insist that trials be run as a `search for truth' so far as defense witnesses are......
  • McCullough v. Archbold Ladder Co., No. 11A01-9108-CV-236
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 27, 1992
    ...to affirm the judgment of the trial court in all respects. --------------- 1 Archbold and SWC refers to Mauricio v. State (1985), Ind., 476 N.E.2d 88, 94, and Reid v. State (1978), 267 Ind. 555, 564-65, 372 N.E.2d 1149, 1154, claiming their holdings require disclosure of rebuttal witnesses ......
  • Mauricio v. Duckworth, No. S 85-523.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Indiana
    • May 2, 1986
    ...court. A careful examination of the underlying state court record and the opinion of the Supreme Court of Indiana in Mauricio v. State, 476 N.E.2d 88 (Ind.1985), reveals that petitioner has exhausted his available state court remedies per 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Anderson v. Harless, 459 U......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 cases
  • Hines v. State, No. 52S05–1408–CR–563.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • May 19, 2015
    ...960 (Ind.1992) ; Mahone v. State, 541 N.E.2d 278, 280 (Ind.1989) ; Eddy v. State, 496 N.E.2d 24, 27–28 (Ind.1986) ; Mauricio v. State, 476 N.E.2d 88, 92 (Ind.1985) ; Thompson v. State, 441 N.E.2d 192, 194 (Ind.1982) ; Stroud v. State, 272 Ind. 12, 14, 395 N.E.2d 770, 771 (1979) ; see also Y......
  • Outback Steakhouse of Florida v. Markley, No. 18S04-0602-CV-66.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 8, 2006
    ...by the plaintiff's argument. Id. at 1264; see also McCullough v. Archbold, 605 N.E.2d 175, 179 (Ind.1993) (citing Mauricio v. State, 476 N.E.2d 88, 95 (Ind.1985) (De Bruler, J., dissenting) ("The State may not insist that trials be run as a `search for truth' so far as defense witnesses are......
  • McCullough v. Archbold Ladder Co., No. 11A01-9108-CV-236
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 27, 1992
    ...to affirm the judgment of the trial court in all respects. --------------- 1 Archbold and SWC refers to Mauricio v. State (1985), Ind., 476 N.E.2d 88, 94, and Reid v. State (1978), 267 Ind. 555, 564-65, 372 N.E.2d 1149, 1154, claiming their holdings require disclosure of rebuttal witnesses ......
  • Mauricio v. Duckworth, No. S 85-523.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Indiana
    • May 2, 1986
    ...court. A careful examination of the underlying state court record and the opinion of the Supreme Court of Indiana in Mauricio v. State, 476 N.E.2d 88 (Ind.1985), reveals that petitioner has exhausted his available state court remedies per 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Anderson v. Harless, 459 U......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT