Pace v. State
| Citation | 248 Ind. 146,224 N.E.2d 312 |
| Decision Date | 20 March 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 30830,30830 |
| Parties | Carl Lemual PACE, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Charles H. Wills, South Bend, for appellant.
John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen., Murray West, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a jury finding and judgment of conviction of the defendant for the crime of accessory before the fact of robbery by placing in fear.
The defendant was charged by an affidavit filed in the St. Joseph Superior Court No. 2, May 26, 1964, with the crime of Accessory Before the Fact to Robbery by Putting in Fear, to-wit:
'Arthur Madaras, being first duly sworn upon his oath, deposes and says:
'That on or about the 23rd day of May, 1964, at and in the County of St. Joseph, State of Indiana, one William Eugene Rootes did then and there unlawfully, feloniously and forcibly and by putting Richard Leon Reppert in fear, rob, take and steal from the said Richard Leon Reppert Two ($2,00) Dollars in good and lawful currency of the United States of America, belonging to the said Richard Leon Reppert, and one Benrus wrist watch with gold band valued in the sum of Fifty ($50.00) Dollars belonging to the said Richard Leon Reppert, and the said Carl Lemual Pace Jr. at and in the County and State aforesaid did then and there unlawfully and feloniously aid and abet, counsel and encourage the said William Eugene Rootes to do and commit the said felony in the manner and form aforesaid, contrary to the form of Statutes in such cases made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the State of Indiana.'
The appellant waived arraignment and entered a plea of not guilty and was represented by court appointed public defender. Trial was to a jury. At the close of State's evidence, defendant filed written motion for directed verdict which was overruled. The jury rendered its verdict against the defendant and found him guilty as charged.
Thereafter on April 6, 1964 the court sentenced the defendant to the Indiana Reformatory for a period of not less than ten (10) or more than twenty-five (25) years. On April 23, 1965 a motion for new trial was filed which was overruled by the trial court. In the assignment of errors, the principal point urged is that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence and the verdict of the jury is contrary to law. We are of the opinion that the principal ground for reversal presented by the assignment of errors which questions the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the jury's finding of guilty is determinative of this case.
Viewing the evidence most favorable to the State, the record shows the following: appellant, his wife and two infant children were in a car driving from South Bend to LaPorte. Eugene Rootes was riding with them. The appellant was driving with his wife and one child in the front seat. Rootes and appellant's other child were in the back seat. While in South Bend, appellant after asking his wife for permission stopped to pick up a hitchhiker, Mr. Reppert, who sat next to Rootes in the back seat with one of appellant's infant children. Later Rootes pulled a knife and took Reppert's wallet. After driving further, Reppert got out of the car, Rootes then took his watch. The appellant said nothing during the entire period and they continued driving to LaPorte. This is all of the evidence presented by the record which would have any bearing on the crime charged, i.e., accessory before the fact of robbery by placing in fear.
The main question presented in the facts at bar is what evidence beyond the mere presence of a person at the scene of a crime is sufficient to sustain a connection as an accessory before the fact? This court has previously stated that negative acquiescence is not enough to constitute a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fox v. State
...because of lack of other circumstances in addition to presence are distinguishable from the present case. In Pace v. State (1967), 248 Ind. 146, 224 N.E.2d 312, the defendant was driving his car from South Bend to LaPorte. His passengers were his wife, two infant children, and Eugene Rootes......
- Jacobsen v. State
-
Wright v. State
...in reaching our decision on the hearsay issue. Yamobi v. State, 672 N.E.2d 1344, 1347 & n. 4 (Ind.1996).8 Pace v. State, 248 Ind. 146, 148-49, 224 N.E.2d 312, 313-14 (Ind.1967).9 Tingle v. State, 632 N.E.2d 345, 354 (Ind.1994); Ford v. State, 521 N.E.2d 1309, 1310-11 (Ind.1988).10 Harris v.......
-
State v. Gazerro, 77-338-C
...States, 150 U.S. at 449, 14 S.Ct. at 146; 37 L.Ed. at 1140; State v. Hicks, 169 Conn. 581, 363 A.2d 1081 (1975); Pace v. State, 248 Ind. 146, 148, 224 N.E.2d 312, 313 (1967). The primary question that courts have had to confront is what facts and circumstances, including a defendant's actua......
-
§ 30.04 Accomplice Liability: Assistance
...v. Vargas, 108 A.3d 858, 869 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014).[49] See State v. Richardson, 923 S.W.2d 301, 317 (Mo. 1996).[50] E.g., Pace v. State, 224 N.E.2d 312, 313 (Ind. 1967); State v. Flint H., 544 A.2d 739, 741 (Me. 1988); State v. Vaillancourt, 453 A.2d 1327, 1328 (N.H. 1982).[51] State v. No......
-
§ 30.04 ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY: ASSISTANCE
...v. Vargas, 108 A.3d 858, 869 (Pa. Super. 2014).[49] . See State v. Richardson, 923 S.W.2d 301, 317 (Mo. 1996).[50] . E.g., Pace v. State, 224 N.E.2d 312, 313 (Ind. 1967); State v. Flint H., 544 A.2d 739, 741 (Me. 1988); State v. Vaillancourt, 453 A.2d 1327, 1328 (N.H. 1982).[51] . State v. ......
-
TABLE OF CASES
...371 Oviedo, United States v., 525 F.2d 881 (5th Cir. 1976), 361, 378 Oxendine v. State, 528 A.2d 870 (Del. 1987), 176 Pace v. State, 224 N.E.2d 312 (Ind. 1967), 444 Pacheco v. State, 770 S.W.2d 834 (Tex. App. 1989), 321, 417 Paese, Commonwealth v., 69 A. 891 (Pa. 1908), 502 Palato v. State,......