Michael v. State
| Decision Date | 21 June 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 283S71,283S71 |
| Citation | 449 N.E.2d 1094 |
| Parties | Roy Clifford MICHAEL a/k/a Gary Michael, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Ray Warren Robison, Bedford, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Theodore E. Hansen, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Appellant was convicted by a jury of rape, a Class B felony. He was sentenced to a term of twelve (12) years.
Appellant's sole issue on appeal is whether the judgment is contrary to law. He argues the inconsistencies in the victim's prior statement and testimony during trial and the conflicting testimony of other witnesses renders the evidence insufficient to support the conviction.
The record reveals the victim was awakened in the living room of her trailer by a man holding her jaws together at approximately 3:40 A.M. He threatened to kill her young children if she refused to cooperate. Appellant struck her one year old daughter. He pushed the victim into the bedroom where he forcibly removed her jeans and had intercourse with her. After the rape was committed the victim took her children to her parents' home across the street. The police, responding to the report, came to her parents' home. She told them she had seen the rapist before at her mother-in-law's home. After examining the scene of the offense, the officers escorted the victim to her in-laws' home. There, appellant was found asleep in a back bedroom. His pants were unzipped and his penis exposed. When the bedroom lights were turned on, the victim immediately identified appellant as the rapist.
Appellant characterizes the victim's descriptions of the lighting conditions in her prior statement and in her in-court testimony as inconsistent. However, a reading of the record reveals that while the victim originally stated it was dark, the victim explained at trial the front room was sufficiently illuminated to "see what you're doing" but the kitchen was dark. The investigating officer also testified that there was "quite a bit of light" in the trailer.
Appellant assails the victim's credibility for her failure to notice his tatoos or appendectomy scar. However, both the victim and the police officer testified defendant was wearing a shirt with near elbow length sleeves during the rape and at the time of his arrest. Moreover, the officer did not notice any tatoos until they arrived at the jail although he transported appellant from the scene of the arrest to a local hospital and to the police station.
Appellant cites the testimony of the physician who examined the victim. The doctor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rodgers v. State
...jury is free to believe whomever they wish.’ “ McClendon v. State, 671 N.E.2d 486, 488 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (quoting Michael v. State, 449 N.E.2d 1094, 1096 (Ind.1983)); see also Kocher v. State, 439 N.E .2d 1344 (Ind.1982) (providing that when the evidence is in conflict, the jury is free to ......
-
Allen v. State
...jury is free to believe whomever they wish.” ’ McClendon v. State, 671 N.E.2d 486, 488 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (quoting Michael v. State, 449 N.E.2d 1094, 1096 (Ind.1983)); see also Kocher v. State, 439 N.E.2d 1344, 1345 (Ind.1982) (providing that when the evidence is in conflict, the jury is fre......
-
McClendon v. State
...1093 (1995) (citing Hall v. State, 634 N.E.2d 837 (Ind.Ct.App.1994)). "The jury is free to believe whomever they wish." Michael v. State, 449 N.E.2d 1094, 1096 (Ind.1983). See also Hammond v. State, 594 N.E.2d 509, 515 (Ind.Ct.App.1992), trans. denied, ("The trial court was not obligated to......
-
Klaff v. State
...the jury is "`free to believe whomever they wish.'" McClendon v. State, 671 N.E.2d 486, 488 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (quoting Michael v. State, 449 N.E.2d 1094, 1096 (Ind.1983)). "Where circumstantial evidence is used to establish guilt, the question the reviewing court is whether reasonable minds......