Moore v. State, No. 3-579A129

Docket NºNo. 3-579A129
Citation182 Ind.App. 552, 395 N.E.2d 1280
Case DateOctober 25, 1979
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

Page 1280

395 N.E.2d 1280
182 Ind.App. 552
Dennis MOORE, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 3-579A129.
Court of Appeals of Indiana, Third District.
Oct. 25, 1979.

Ellen S. Podgor, Nicholls & Podgor, Crown Point, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Rollin E. Thompson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

[182 Ind.App. 553] STATON, Judge.

A jury found Dennis Moore guilty of two counts of Theft. Ind.Code Ann. § 35-43-4-2 (West 1978). He was sentenced to the Indiana Department of Corrections for a period of two (2) years. In his appeal to

Page 1281

this Court, he raises the following issues for our review:

(1) Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction?

(2) Whether the trial court erred when it admitted evidence of a criminal scheme Moore had contemplated on a prior occasion?

We affirm.

I.

Sufficiency of the Evidence

Moore contends that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he committed Theft, as that offense is defined in Ind.Code Ann. § 35-43-4-2, Supra :

"A person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use, commits theft, a class D felony."

He specifically argues that the State failed to show he (1) exerted Control over the property of another, and (2) that he acted Knowingly and Intentionally.

Our disposition of Moore's concomitant assertions is governed by a well-settled standard and scope of review. We are constrained to examine only that evidence which is favorable to the State, together with the reasonable inferences which can be drawn therefrom. If, from that viewpoint, there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the jury's verdict, the conviction will not be set aside. Henderson v. State (1976), 264 Ind. 334, 335, 343 N.E.2d 776, 777.

The evidence reveals that on March 13, 1978 Antonio Gutherez took his wife to Dr. Polite's office on Indianapolis Street in Hessville, Indiana, for a pregnancy examination. After the examination, the couple discovered that their automobile, a red 1975 Mercury Montego, which Antonio had parked outside Dr. Polite's office, was missing.

The following day, Ethel Lape suffered a similar fate. Her green [182 Ind.App. 554] 1972 Ford station wagon disappeared from outside the South Shore Railway station in East Chicago, where she had parked it while she took a commuter train to and from her job in Chicago.

At approximately noon on March 14, Gary Police Officers Alton Brumfield and Walter Gilliam were on patrol when the police radio dispatcher informed them that an auto was being "stripped" near 17th and Van Buren Streets in Gary. Brumfield and Gilliam proceeded to the scene, where Brumfield witnessed two men placing a red object in a green Ford station wagon. The engine of the station wagon was idling. Brumfield testified that when the two men became aware of the officers' presence, they dropped the red object and fled down an alleyway. They were subsequently apprehended; a closer examination of the red object proved it to be a door from Gutherez's 1975 Mercury Montego, which was parked nearby. The Montego had been...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Gaddie v. State, No. 2-278A41
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 7, 1980
    ...236 Ind. 439, 140 N.E.2d 878, supra note 3; Gilley v. State (1949) 227 Ind. 701, 88 N.E.2d 759; Moore v. State (3d Dist.1979) Ind.App., 395 N.E.2d 1280. BUCHANAN, C. J., SHIELDS, J., dissents with opinion. SHIELDS, Judge, dissenting. I dissent. I agree with Gaddie that the evidence is insuf......
  • Carty v. State, No. 1-1280A356
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 23, 1981
    ...act as well as from the surrounding circumstances. Perry v. State, (1980) Ind.App., 401 N.E.2d 792; Moore v. State, (1979) Ind.App., 395 N.E.2d 1280. The intentional commission of acts which have a known tendency to injure will support a verdict of aggravated assault and battery. Defries v.......
  • Raspberry v. State, No. 580S149
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 24, 1981
    ...specificity necessary to preserve the question for appeal. Ind.R.Tr.P. 59(D); Spivey v. State, supra; Moore v. State, (1979) Ind.App., 395 N.E.2d 1280. III. Defendant next alleges that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the jury's verdict. Our disposition of this issue is governed b......
  • Nelson v. State, No. 4-182A26
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 28, 1982
    ...opportunity, the defendant has waived his right to challenge the admission of the evidence on appeal. Moore v. State, (1979) Ind.App., 395 N.E.2d 1280. The defendant's failure to make a timely objection to Mrs. Vowell's testimony concerning the lineup waives any error made by the trial cour......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Gaddie v. State, No. 2-278A41
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 7, 1980
    ...236 Ind. 439, 140 N.E.2d 878, supra note 3; Gilley v. State (1949) 227 Ind. 701, 88 N.E.2d 759; Moore v. State (3d Dist.1979) Ind.App., 395 N.E.2d 1280. BUCHANAN, C. J., SHIELDS, J., dissents with opinion. SHIELDS, Judge, dissenting. I dissent. I agree with Gaddie that the evidence is insuf......
  • Carty v. State, No. 1-1280A356
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 23, 1981
    ...act as well as from the surrounding circumstances. Perry v. State, (1980) Ind.App., 401 N.E.2d 792; Moore v. State, (1979) Ind.App., 395 N.E.2d 1280. The intentional commission of acts which have a known tendency to injure will support a verdict of aggravated assault and battery. Defries v.......
  • Raspberry v. State, No. 580S149
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 24, 1981
    ...specificity necessary to preserve the question for appeal. Ind.R.Tr.P. 59(D); Spivey v. State, supra; Moore v. State, (1979) Ind.App., 395 N.E.2d 1280. III. Defendant next alleges that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the jury's verdict. Our disposition of this issue is governed b......
  • Nelson v. State, No. 4-182A26
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 28, 1982
    ...opportunity, the defendant has waived his right to challenge the admission of the evidence on appeal. Moore v. State, (1979) Ind.App., 395 N.E.2d 1280. The defendant's failure to make a timely objection to Mrs. Vowell's testimony concerning the lineup waives any error made by the trial cour......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT