McFadin v. State, 82A04-8601-CR33
| Decision Date | 30 June 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 82A04-8601-CR33,82A04-8601-CR33 |
| Citation | 494 N.E.2d 983 |
| Parties | Craig E. McFADIN, Appellant (Defendant Below) v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Allan G. Loosemore, Jr., Lantz, Shaw & Corbett, P.C., Evansville, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Richard Albert Alford, Deputy Atty. Gen., Office of Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Defendant-Appellant, Craig E. McFadin (McFadin), appeals two convictions for leaving the scene of an accident involving property damage and injury, class B misdemeanors. IND.CODE 9-4-1-40.
We reverse.
Because we reverse we address only the issue of whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Two adolescent boys riding bicycles were hit by a red Ford pickup truck. The truck was driven by an older, balding, gray haired man wearing glasses. Each boy was injured and his bicycle damaged.
A witness to the incident, Sandy Kneer (Kneer), followed the truck. She copied the license number. Kneer gave the license number, a description of the truck, and description of the driver to Evansville police officer, J.C. Wolf.
Another witness, Kirk Pruden (Pruden), gave a similar description of the truck and driver to officer Wolf.
Wolf broadcast a "be on the lookout" warning. It included the license number, and described the driver and truck. The truck was registered to one Lena McFadin.
Approximately one and one-half hours after the boys were hit Indiana State Police Officer Frank Smith (Smith) stopped McFadin. McFadin was driving a red Ford pickup truck. It bore the license number given by Kneer and broadcast by Wolf. Smith testified McFadin matched the description broadcast by Wolf. The right front fender of the truck was damaged.
When sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on review we neither weigh the evidence nor determine the credibility of witnesses. We look to the evidence most favorable to the State together with all reasonable inferences therefrom. We then determine if there is substantial evidence of probative value from which the trier of fact might reasonably infer guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Correll v. State (1985), Ind., 486 N.E.2d 497, 500; Harris v. State (1985), Ind., 480 N.E.2d 932, 937.
A conviction may be based solely on circumstantial evidence. Correll, supra; Watkins v. State (1984), Ind., 468 N.E.2d 1049, 1052. However, where as here, the evidence is wholely circumstantial in character, it must be of such conclusive and persuasive force it points surely and unerringly to the guilt of the accused so as to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Manlove v. State (1968), 250 Ind. 70, 77, 232 N.E.2d 874, 878. When the State fails to connect the defendant with the crime, the conviction must be reversed. Freeman v. State (1984), Ind.App., 458 N.E.2d 694, 695.
Here the State failed to present direct or circumstantial evidence from which the trier of fact could have reasonably inferred McFadin was driving the truck when it hit the boys.
The only evidence connecting McFadin to the truck was his driving it one and one-half hours after the incident. Neither Kneer nor Pruden identified him at trial as the driver of the truck at the time it hit the boys, nor did either of them testify McFadin even looked like the driver. In fact, Kneer was never asked if McFadin was or looked like the driver. Pruden failed to make the necessary connection when asked those questions. Smith merely testified McFadin met the description broadcast by Wolf.
A verdict based merely upon suspicion, probability, conjecture, speculation, and unreasonable inferences of guilt gleaned from the record cannot be upheld. Manlove, 250 Ind. at 84, 232 N.E.2d at 882; Freeman, 458 N.E.2d at 696.
Reversed.
1 As a statement of the issues McFadin sets out...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart v. State
...evidence was circumstantial and the prosecution was not able to disprove every reasonable theory of innocence, citing McFadin v. State, 494 N.E.2d 983, 984 (Ind.App.1986). While a defendant may be entitled to a jury instruction to this effect, this standard is not applicable to appellate re......
-
Willis v. State
...was no evidence properly before the jury identifying the substance sold as a proscribed substance we must reverse. Cf. McFadin v. State (1986), Ind.App., 494 N.E.2d 983 (evidence of identity insufficient to sustain convictions for leaving scene of accident involving property damage and REVE......