Monroe v. State, 2--375A84
| Decision Date | 30 December 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 2--375A84,2--375A84 |
| Citation | 339 N.E.2d 102,167 Ind.App. 418 |
| Parties | Kim Ray MONROE, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Theodore M. Koch, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Joseph J. Reiswerg, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Defendant-appellant, Monroe, appeals from his conviction of theft, 1 contending the evidence was insufficient to prove the offense charged since the State did not prove that he knowingly exerted unauthorized control.
We affirm.
The evidence most favorable to the State is: On April 15, 1974, Lawrence Pierce of Marion County, Indiana, parked and locked his motorcycle in front of his apartment. The following morning when he returned to the location where he had parked his motorcycle, he discovered that it was missing. He immediately reported the theft to the police.
Approximately ten days later Officer Beaton of the Indianapolis Police Department saw defendant on a motorcycle which matched the description of the stolen cycle, and attempted to stop the defendant. The officer pursued the defendant for several blocks until the defendant fell from the motorcycle turning a corner. The defendant immediately tried to flee on foot, but the officer released his police dog and apprehended the defendant in the alley east of the intersection.
Defendant maintained that he had borrowed the motorcycle from a friend, but he was never able to produce this friend at trial. In addition, the defendant's girlfriend did not know of this alleged friend. The trial court convicted defendant of the offense charged and sentenced him to one to ten years.
When circumstantial evidence is the basis of a conviction, this Court looks at that evidence to determine whether the inference of guilt drawn therefrom is reasonable. Linnemeier v. State (1975), Ind.App., 330 N.E.2d 373. Such evidence upon review is examined not for the purpose of determining whether it is adequate to overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, but with the view of deciding whether an inference may be reasonably drawn therefrom which supports the judgment of the trial court. Kappes v. State (1975), Ind.App., 330 N.E.2d 755.
Here the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harris v. State
...support an inference that he had knowingly obtained and exerted unauthorized control of the television. See Monroe v. State (1975), 167 Ind.App. 418, 339 N.E.2d 102. To prove the "breaking and entering" elements of burglary, the prosecution does not have to show that an actual breaking of t......
-
Finch v. State
...must be affirmed. Schilling v. State (1978), Ind., 376 N.E.2d 1142. Foor v. State (1977), Ind.App., 360 N.E.2d 1273. Monroe v. State (1975), Ind.App., 339 N.E.2d 102. We cannot, and do not, weigh the evidence nor determine the credibility of witnesses. Schilling v. State, supra, Hunter v. S......