Olinger v. State
| Decision Date | 15 June 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 1082S402,1082S402 |
| Citation | 463 N.E.2d 1385 |
| Parties | William F. OLINGER a/k/a William F. Ollinger, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Lewis N. Mullin, Delphi, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Carmen L. Quintana, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a conviction on a verdict finding appellant guilty of burglary, a class C felony, under Ind.Code Sec. 35-43-2-1, and also finding him to be a habitual offender under a separate recidivist count pursuant to Ind.Code Sec. 35-50-2-8. He was ordered imprisoned for seven years on the burglary count and thirty years on the habitual offender count. The claims on appeal are that the evidence was insufficient to convict and that the sentence is erroneous.
The information charged a break-in with the intent to steal of the Mode O'Day Women's Clothing Store on Main Street in Delphi, Indiana on the 23rd day of November, 1981.
The core of the prosecution's case came from Barbara Clawson, the owner of the women's apparel shop, the confederate Joey Gibson, and the confederate's girlfriend, Patricia McLaughlin. The owner testified that her shop was broken into and clothing, jewelry and cash stolen, on the night of November 22-23, 1981. Joey Gibson testified that he and his father and appellant broke into the shop and stole the items. Patricia McLaughlin testified that Joey Gibson, his father, and appellant came to her house in Lafayette, Indiana between three and four a.m. on November 23, 1981, with a green garbage bag containing women's clothing, jewelry and a radio. Appellant sorted out and took some things which would fit his wife. At the time he stated that he left a personal item of his inside the place from which they had stolen the items. The items which were then left in the house in Lafayette were later turned over to police and identified at trial as being items stolen from the shop.
Appellant claims that the evidence was lacking in substance in that much of it came from an alleged confederate Joey Gibson who testified to his own benefit under a grant of immunity by the police, and who gave contradictory versions of various events. To this he adds the fact that none of the stolen items were found about his trailer or in his possession when the police searched the area. In determining this question of insufficiency of evidence we do not weigh the evidence nor resolve questions of credibility but look to the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom which support the verdict. Smith v. State, (1970) 254 Ind. 401, 260 N.E.2d 558. The conviction will be affirmed if from that viewpoint there is evidence of probative value from which a reasonable trier of fact could infer that appellant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Glover v. State, (1970) 253 Ind. 536, 255 N.E.2d 657.
Joey Gibson made statements in his deposition regarding the precise point and manner of entry into the clothing store and the precise time when he, his father and appellant committed another burglary, that of the lumber company in Logansport. He contradicted those statements in his testimony at trial. In attacking the testimony of Gibson, appellant also contends that he was an unreliable witness, in that he testified under immunity granted by the prosecution. Moreover, it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGrew v. State
...was inherently improbable and runs counter to human experience. Robey v. State (1990) Ind., 555 N.E.2d 145, 149; Olinger v. State (1984) Ind., 463 N.E.2d 1385, 1387. McGrew argues that J.W.'s recounting of the incident is improbable in light of his medical condition. We were faced with a si......
-
Brooks v. State
...not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of inherently improbable testimony which runs contrary to human experience. Olinger v. State (1984), Ind., 463 N.E.2d 1385. We do not find the testimony of B.B. to be of that nature and therefore will not override its acceptance by the jury. Appella......
-
Davenport v. State
...and to find defendant guilty. See Campbell, 500 N.E.2d at 179; Shields v. State, 490 N.E.2d 292, 294-95 (Ind.1986); Ollinger v. State, 463 N.E.2d 1385, 1387 (Ind.1984). III. Defendant next argues that his convictions should be reversed because he received ineffective assistance of counsel d......
-
Robey v. State
...may be said that the testimony of State's witnesses was inherently improbable and runs counter to human experience." Olinger v. State (1984), Ind., 463 N.E.2d 1385, 1387. Robey argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions for kidnapping based on his own testimony an......