Osborn v. State

• Decision Date: 28 January 1927
• Docket Number: 24,711
• Parties: Osborn v. State of Indiana
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

154 N.E. 865

199 Ind. 44

Osborn v. State of Indiana

No. 24,711

Supreme Court of Indiana

January 28, 1927

1. CRIMINAL LAW.---Province of Supreme Court to determine whether evidence established all essential facts constituting crime charged.---The Supreme Court does not weigh evidence its province being to examine and consider the evidence for the purpose of determining whether there was legal evidence to establish all of the essential facts constituting the crime with which the defendant was charged. p. 46.

2. CRIMINAL LAW.---Burden on appellant in Supreme Court to overcome presumption of regularity of proceedings and correctness of verdict or finding.---In the trial court, the burden is on the state to remove, beyond a reasonable doubt the presumption of innocence which the law throws around the accused throughout the trial, but, on appeal, the burden is on the appellant to overcome the presumption of a fair and impartial trial and that the verdict or finding was according to law. p. 46.

3. CRIMINAL LAW.---Rule that appellant has burden of overcoming presumption that verdict or finding was correct applies when evidence was all circumstantial.---The rule that, on appeal the burden is on ap- pellant to show that verdict was not sustained by sufficient evidence or contrary to law applies when the evidence was all circumstantial as well as to cases where direct testimony was given. p. 46.

4 LARCENY.---Evidence necessary to sustain conviction.---In a prosecution for larceny of automobile tires, before the jury could rightfully convict, it must be able to determine from the evidence that the defendant did feloniously take, steal and carry away tires which were the goods of the party named in the affidavit. p. 46.

5. CRIMINAL LAW.---To justify conviction on circumstantial evidence alone, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.---A court or jury should not convict on circumstantial evidence alone unless the circumstances proper to be considered are such as exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. p. 46.

6. CRIMINAL LAW.---It is not the function of the court on appeal to determine the truth or falsity of the evidence. p. 46.

7. CRIMINAL LAW.---On appeal from a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the judgment will not be disturbed unless an essential link in the chain of circumstances is wanting. p. 46.

8. CRIMINAL LAW.---Conviction on circumstantial evidence must stand where the circumstances reasonably warrant inference of guilt. Though a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence may be weak, a conviction thereon must stand if the circumstances supporting it are such that the jury or trial court could reasonably draw the inference of guilt. p. 46.

9. LARCENY.---Circumstantial evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction of larceny of automobile tires. p. 49.

From Greene Circuit Court; Thomas VanBuskirk, Judge.

Loyal Osborn was convicted of grand larceny, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

James M. Hudson, for appellant.

U. S. Lesh, Attorney-General, for the State.

OPINION

Myers, J.

Appellant, in the Greene Circuit Court, was, by affidavit in two counts, charged with the crimes of robbery and grand larceny. He was convicted of grand larceny. § 2451 Burns 1926. From a judgment on a verdict of guilty, he appealed, and in this court assigns as error the overruling of his motion for a new trial. He insists that the verdict was not sustained by sufficient evidence and therefore contrary to law.

It is true, as claimed by appellant, that his conviction rests entirely upon circumstantial evidence, which, he asserts, was insufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. This court does not weigh evidence. It is our province only to examine and consider the evidence with the view of determining whether or not there was legal evidence before the jury establishing all of the essential facts constituting the crime. The burden is on the state in the trial court, by legal evidence, to remove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence which the law throws around the accused throughout the trial, but in this court, the burden is on the party appealing to overcome the presumption of a fair and impartial trial, and a verdict or finding according to law. This rule applies alike to verdicts resting upon circumstantial evidence alone as well as to verdicts upon direct evidence.

In the instant case, the subject of the larceny was automobile tires. Hence, before the jury could rightfully convict, it must be able to determine from the evidence conclusively showing that appellant did feloniously take, steal and carry away the tires which were the goods and chattels of James B. Dillon, as charged in the affidavit.

Appellant earnestly insists that there was no evidence of a conclusive character connecting him with the subject of the larceny much...