Medsker v. State

• Decision Date: 15 January 1968
• Docket Number: No. 31009,31009
• Citation: 232 N.E.2d 869,249 Ind. 369
• Parties: Donald Earl MEDSKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 869

232 N.E.2d 869

249 Ind. 369

Donald Earl MEDSKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.

No. 31009.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Jan. 15, 1968.

Karl Overbeck, Monticello, for appellant.

John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Murray West, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.

ARTERBURN, Judge.

The appellant was charged and convicted of second degree burglary under Burns' Ind.Stat.Anno. § 10--701 (1956 Repl.). He appeals, and the essential claimed error is that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence.

For that purpose, we must briefly review the evidence, looking at it most favorably to the State, drawing all reasonable inferences therefrom. Fisher v. State (1966), Ind., 219 N.E.2d 818; Stock v. State (1966), Ind., 219 N.E.2d 809; Majko v. State (1965), Ind., 207 N.E.2d 212.

The evidence shows that William J. Moore, a partner in Clark and Moore Packing Company of Monticello, Indiana, had an arrangement by which a burglar alarm sounded at his home in event the place of business was broken into after it was locked up. On October 2, 1965 at 12:35 a.m. in the night, this burglar alarm sounded. He states that he drove to the location of his company building within a few minutes; that he saw a Buick automobile in which two men were stopped in front of the drive to his building; that when he drove up he saw the appellant 'walk out from behind the building' and enter the car and drive away with the two other occupants down the street, which was a dead-end road. He said he could see the appellant easily and readily identify his features, and did so at the trial. He further testified that there was 'a big security light right directly by the driveway' to his building, which was on; that it came on automatically when it was dark; that he also had his headlights turned on, which revealed the appellant plainly. He further testified that shortly thereafter the police arrived, and by that time the automobile which had gone up the dead-end road was coming back. He had placed his car in the road to block them. The police then stopped the approaching car which contained the appellant, and Mr. Moore identified him at that time.

There was further testimony by the law officers, as well as other witnesses, that they discovered the hasps on the metal door of the building were cut; that the padlock was cut and one of the doors was pried open; that the floor of the building was wet except one dry spot, and at that time there was a wet footprint on the dry spot; that there was $17.00 in a money bag that was missing that was there the evening before. The evidence further showed that a bolt cutter and two crowbars were found together in a ditch alongside the dead-end road along which the automobile in which appellant was riding was driven immediately following the burglary.

An Indiana state police officer testified he was a laboratory technician; that under microscopic inspection and other examination he found minute particles and other evidence on the bolt cutter that it had been used to cut the hasps on the door. Finally, the deputy sheriff testified that while he was taking appellant from Monticello to Logansport appellant stated to him: 'I may be guilty but they have to prove it' and 'I've been in jail enough. I learned one thing. * * * Anybody that was guilty and pleaded guilty was nuts. * * * At least you've got a fifty-fifty chance'.

We may not weigh the evidence on appeal. We can only determine if reasonable inferences may be drawn from the evidence tending to support the finding of the trial court or the verdict of the jury. A case may be...