McAfee v. State
| Citation | 259 Ind. 687,291 N.E.2d 554 |
| Decision Date | 19 January 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 1171S324,1171S324 |
| Parties | Robert Lewis McAFEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Harriette Bailey Conn, Public Defender, Carl L. Darden, Sr., Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.
Theo. L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Robert F. Colker, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Defendant (Appellant) was convicted, in a trial to the court, of uttering a false instrument and was sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two nor more than fourteen years. This appeal is addressed only to the sufficiency of the evidence, it being charged that the State failed to prove the elements of knowledge of falsity and intent to defraud, both of which are essential to a conviction.
The State's evidence is not in dispute and discloses that the defendant and his co-defendant, Emma Easley, went to Lee's Liquor Store, where Emma presented the check to the shop owner for payment, while the defendant, who had endorsed it, waited outside in an automobile. The shop owner suspected the check, which was made payable to the defendant, to be fraudulent and requested Emma to get the defendant. At the same time, he summoned the police by means of an electronic alarm system. The check was drawn upon the account of Midwest Auto Auctions, Inc., from whom it had been stolen, but was signed 'E. B. Edward,' who was neither an employee of Midwest nor an authorized signatory upon the account. The defendant testified that the check had been given to him by a Mr. Swanigan, a fellow employee, whom he knew by sight but concerning whom he knew nothing more and that it was given to him in payment for several days work he had performed earlier. He further testified that he did not know his employer, from whom he assumed the payment came, but that it was not Midwest Auto Auctions, Inc. and that he had observed that the check was drawn on Midwest Auto Auctions, Inc. and wondered about it, but he did not inquire of Swanigan upon the question. When the defendant entered the shop, as requested by the shop owner, he was instructed by the owner to write his address under his endorsement, which he did. The check was admitted into evidence. The amount for which it was drawn had been embossed thereon by a checkwriting machine. The name of the drawer and of the bank upon which it was drawn were printed. The name of the payee was entered in longhand. The defendant testified that he did not know who wrote it, but there was a striking similarity in the handwriting by which the name of the payee, the signature of E. B. Edward, and the endorsement had been written. The address which the defendant entered in the presence of the shop owner was distinctively dissimilar. Neither was it his correct address.
As this Court has written, innumerable times, we will not, on appeal, weigh the evidence nor determine the credibility of witnesses, and when the sufficiency of the evidence is raised as an issue upon appeal, we will consider only that evidence most favorable to the State, together with all logical and reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom. The conviction will be affirmed if, from that viewpoint, there is substantial evidence of probative value from which the trier of the facts could reasonably infer that the appellant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Fuller v. State (1971), Ind., 271...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v. State, 2-1072A80
...... It seems to me that this principle was and is compelled by decisions of the Indiana Supreme Court, e. g., McAfee v. State (1973) Ind., 291 N.E.2d 554; White v. State (1948) 226 Ind. 309, 79 N.E.2d 771. Furthermore, each of the three districts of the Court of Appeals have so held. Hardy v. State (1974 1st District) Ind.App., 307 N.E.2d 292; Guyton v. State (1973 2d District), supra, and Atkins v. State (1974 ......
-
Cloman v. State
...... Atkins v. State (1974), 159 Ind.App. 387, 307 N.E.2d 73; McAfee v. State (1973), 259 Ind. 687, 291 N.E.2d 554; Glover v. State (1973), 157 Ind.App. 532, 300 N.E.2d 902." . PREMEDITATED MURDER . Applying those rules, we believe the recitation of facts and circumstances set out above, together with reasonable inferences therefrom, were ......
-
Ruetz v. State
......State (1968), 250 Ind. 70, 232 N.E.2d 874, with McAfee v. State (1973), 259 Ind. 687, 291 N.E.2d 554. This question is not a new one, but is rather the subject of a long-standing . Page 157. and continuing debate on this court. See, e. g., McAfee, supra; Manlove, supra; Christen v. State (1950), 228 Ind. 30, 89 N.E.2d 445; McAdams v. State (1948), ......
-
Windle v. State
...... See, Farno v. State (1974), Ind.App., 308 N.E.2d 724; Robinson v. State (1971), 257 Ind. 38, 271 N.E.2d 727; Davis v. State (1968), 251 Ind. 133, 239 N.E.2d 601; Walker v. State (1968), 250 Ind. 649, 238 N.E.2d 466; Tait v. State (1963), 244 Ind. 35, 188 N.E.2d 537; McAfee v. State (1973), Ind., 291 N.E.2d 554; Guyton v. State (1973), Ind.App., 299 N.E.2d 233; Luther v. State (1912), 177 Ind. 619, 98 N.E. 640; Sargent v. State (1973), Ind.App., 297 N.E.2d 459; Bradley v. State (1972), Ind.App., 287 N.E.2d 759; ......