Moon v. State
| Decision Date | 22 April 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 880S340,880S340 |
| Citation | 419 N.E.2d 740,275 Ind. 651 |
| Parties | James C. MOON, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
William J. Dougherty, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Michael Gene Worden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
The defendant, James C. Moon, was convicted in a bench trial of attempted robbery, a class A felony, Ind.Code § 35-42-5-1 (Burns 1979 Repl.), and carrying a handgun without a license, a class D felony, Ind.Code § 35-23-4.1-18(c) (Burns 1979 Repl.). He was sentenced to concurrent terms of twenty years for the class A felony and two years for the class D felony. Moon presents the following issues for our review:
1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction; and
2. Whether the judgment of the trial court was contrary to law.
The evidence indicates that during the evening of November 7, 1979, the defendant and a machete-bearing accomplice entered the Brookside Market at 2129 Brookside Avenue in Indianapolis. The defendant, who was carrying a revolver, fired a shot at the ceiling and demanded money from the cashier. Startled by the shot, a patron near the cash register bolted down an aisle toward the rear of the store. The machete-bearing accomplice gave chase.
Their path carried them toward a window, largely veiled from public view, which connected the owner's living quarters to the store. Through that window the owner had been observing the developments. As the two men neared the window, the owner saw the accomplice raise the machete to swing it at the patron. At that point the owner pushed the window open and fired five shots at the accomplice.
Wounded by the gunfire, the accomplice dropped the machete and, together with the defendant, fled the premises. In the aftermath, it was discovered that one of the bullets fired by the owner had ricocheted and hit the cashier in the leg.
Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for attempted robbery as a class A felony. That contention is predicated on the fact that the "bodily injury" necessary to elevate attempted robbery to a felony of class A status, Ind.Code § 35-42-5-1 (Burns 1979 Repl.), was inflicted by a bullet fired by the owner of the Brookside Market. Since neither he nor his accomplice fired the shot which injured the cashier, defendant maintains there is no evidence to establish his liability for class A attempted robbery.
We disagree. The responsibility for any bodily injury which occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a robbery rests on the perpetrators of the crime, regardless of who inflicts the injury, so long as it is a natural and probable consequence of the events and circumstances surrounding the robbery or attempt. That our legislature so intended is readily manifest in the language employed in the robbery statute:
"(T)he offense (robbery) is a class B felony if it is committed while armed with a deadly weapon, and a class A felony if it results in either bodily injury or serious bodily injury to any other person." Ind.Code § 35-42-5-1 (Burns 1979 Repl.).
The pronoun "it" obviously refers to the robbery or attempted robbery. If the robbery or attempt "results in" bodily injury, the perpetrator of the crime is liable for a felony of class A status.
The statutory attribution of responsibility for any bodily injury which flows from a robbery or attempted robbery no doubt reflects the legislature's recognition that regardless of the perpetrator's design, the crime of robbery has inherent potential for violence. Victims may resist, police or bystanders may intercede. Neither these responses nor the concomitant likelihood that some bodily injury will occur can be regarded as unnatural or improbable consequences of the perpetrator's conduct.
These natural responses and consequences were alluded to by this Court in Bailey v. State, (1980) Ind., 412 N.E.2d 56, where, in discussing the statutory term "results in," we stated:
Here, the defendant and his accomplice walked into a grocery store armed with a revolver and machete. They fired a shot into the air, demanded money, and swung a machete at a store patron. The bodily injury which ultimately occurred, albeit caused by the gunfire of the store owner, was a natural consequence of the conduct of the defendant and his accomplice in attempting the robbery. Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Head v. State
...rationale which underlies the felony-murder rule--the recognition that the crimes carry the inherent risk of bodily harm. Moon v. State, (1981) Ind., 419 N.E.2d 740; Bailey v. State, (1980) Ind., 412 N.E.2d 56. To extrapolate that supposition and hold that the fact of bodily injury establis......
-
Underhill v. State
...evidence of probative value to support the fact-finder's conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt, it will not be set aside. Moon v. State, (1981) Ind., 419 N.E.2d 740. Here, defendant argues there was no evidence to establish he was the person whose fingerprints appear on state's exhibit 17, a......
-
Lane v. State
...there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the fact-finder's conclusion, it will not be set aside. Moon v. State, (1981) Ind., 419 N.E.2d 740; Henderson v. State, (1976) 264 Ind. 334, 343 N.E.2d The testimony regarding the identification of defendant as the perpetrator was ......
-
Pollard v. State
...is improper." Bailey, supra at 59. In Bailey the court essentially stated that causation is ordinarily a jury question. In Moon v. State, (1981) Ind., 419 N.E.2d 740, the court held that where the owner of a market fired at the defendant robbers and struck a cashier, the requisite "results ......