McCoy v. State, 29546
| Decision Date | 27 February 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 29546,29546 |
| Parties | Homer McCOY, Jr., Bobbie Ray Tallent, Leonard Charles Miller, Appellants, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Ferdinand Samper, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Owen S. Boling, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellants were charged by separate affidavits with the crimes of entering to commit a felony under Acts 1941, ch. 148, § 5, p. 447, being § 10-704, Burns' 1956 Replacement, and automobile banditry under Acts 1929, ch. 54, § 3, p. 136, being § 10-4710, Burns' 1956 Replacement.
The causes were consolidated for trial and the jury found the appellants guilty of auto banditry, and they were sentenced to the Indiana Reformatory for a determinate period of ten years. A fourth person was tried with appellants and likewise found guilty. However, a mistrial was declared as to him when it was discovered that he was only 17 years of age.
Three questions are presented for our determination.
First: Appellants assert that the trial court erred in giving its Isntruction No. 17 for the reason that 'said instruction was not a correct statement of the law.'
Rule 1-7 of this court provides that objections to the giving of instructions shall be specific, and no error with respect to the giving of instructions shall be available as a cause for a new trial or on appeal, except upon specific objections made. The objection to the giving of Instruction No. 17 does not specifically state in what way or why such instruction is not a correct statement of the law, and in our opinion is, under the provisions of Rule 1-7, supra, not sufficiently specific to present any error on appeal.
Second: Appellants assert that it was error to permit the introduction of State's Exhibit No. 1 consisting of a five dollar bill which was among the money found in appellants' automobile at the time it was searched by the arresting officers in Tipton, Indiana.
The evidence on this point discloses that a filling station owner in the city of Tipton, Indiana, testified, as a witness for the State, that on the morning of September 23, 1956, he arrived at his filling station at about 6:30 and as he approached the station he saw someone jump 'from behind the station and * * * under a truck' which was 'parked there.' As the man came from under the truck he ran and entered 'an old model Plymouth in two different colors of blue paint,' which was parked nearby, and when he entered the car it 'pulled away.' This witness further testified that he observed that when the man came from under the truck there was grease on his trousers.
The witness also testified that the lock on the door from which he had seen the man run was 'jimmied' and was 'pried at on the frame.' The witness got in his car and attempted to overtake the two-tone Plymouth and, failing in this, he then notified the city police, telling them what had happened and giving them a description of the car and grease spot on the man's trousers.
One of the arresting officers testified that after he was notified by the filling station owner of the attempted break-in, he went to the filling station where he examined the door and 'could see there where they had been prying on the lock of the back door.' He further testified that he and another officer then started crusing and saw the Plymouth automobile which had been described to them. The witness then testified further, in pertinent part, as follows:
'* * * we pulled them over and said something to them about them driving so fast and then I looked in the back seat and saw this man with the blue shirt and blue trousers, so we told them they would have to come with us and they got out of their car and got in the police car and we took them back to Mr. Smith's station and he said he thought that was the man he saw taking off around from the back of the station, and so we held them for investigation and then we goes back and gets the car and take it to the filling station and we started searching the car until we found two or three loose cigars and we kept looking around and we looked on the heater and found two cigar boxes, one box with Phillies and another with some other kind in it and one cigar box had money in it, some bills and change, I think we counted about thirty-four dollars and that was all turned over to the chief of police.'
This evidence is sufficient to show that at least one of the four accused had attempted to break in and enter the filling station in Tipton and when they were interrupted by the arrival of the owner, they used the Plymouth automobile which was parked nearby in an attempt to escape.
The arrest and search herein without out a warrant was legal if, at the time appellants were taken into custody, the arresting officer had reason or probable cause to believe that appellants had committed a felony. Stearsman v. State, 1957, Ind.Sup., 143 N.E.2d 81, 88; Enlow v. State, 1955, 234 Ind. 156, 158, 125 N.E.2d 250.
The felony which is the basis for probable cause here is the use of an automobile in an attempt to escape from a filling station in Tipton where appellants, or one of them, had attempted to commit a felony. See: Acts 1929, ch. 54, § 3, p. 136, being § 10-4710, Burns' 1956 Replacement, supra.
It seems to us that the foregoing evidence is sufficient to show that at the time appellants were taken into custody the arresting officers had reason to believe that they had attempted to commit a felony and that the Plymouth automobile in which they were apprehended was used in attempting to escape from the scene of the attempted felony, i. e., the attempt to break in and enter the filling station in Tipton, Indiana. Under the circumstances here the evidence which was obtained as a result of the search of appellants' automobile was incidental to a lawful arrest; and such evidence was admissible in the trial of the offense for which appellants were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shipman v. State
... ... However, this fact does not prevent it being sufficient to sustain a conviction. In the case of McCoy v. State (1958), 237 Ind. 654, 660, 148 N.E.2d 190, 193, it was stated as follows: ... '[A] conviction may be sustained wholly on circumstantial ... ...
-
Town of Merrillville v. Lincoln Gardens Utilities Co., Inc.
... ... is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Indiana with corporate power and authority to own, operate and maintain a sanitary sewage ... ...
-
Williams v. State, 30712
... ... This, however, was a 'prying into hidden places for that which is concealed.' McCoy v. State (1960), 241 Ind. 104, 115, 170 N.E.2d 43, 48. This was not a discovery which was open to view. Lindsey v. State (1965), Ind., 204 N.E.2d ... ...
-
Throop v. State
... ... See McCoy v. State (1958), 237 Ind. 654, 148 N.E.2d 190 ... Appellants also argue that the evidence in this case is unreasonable in ... that ... ...