Presley v. State, 1--972A75
| Decision Date | 07 March 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 1--972A75,1--972A75 |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
| Parties | Michael Allen PRESLEY, Defendant-Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee. . First District |
Gerald E. Surface, Jr., Richmond, for defendant-appellant.
Theo. L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Lynda F. Huppert, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff-appellee.
The defendant-appellant (Presley) is appealing his conviction of the theft of a motor vehicle. His trial was by jury.
At the outset it should be said that this court will not weigh the evidence nor resolve the questions of credibility, but will look to the evidence most favorable to the state and the reasonable inferences therefrom which support the verdict of the trial court of jury. Washington v. State (1971), Ind., 271 N.E.2d 883; Davis v. State (1971), Ind., 271 N.E. 893; Grimm v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 150, 258 N.E.2d 407; Sharp v. State (1970), Ind., 260 N.E.2d 593.
Of the five specifications of error alleged in Presley's motion to correct errors, three may be discussed and decided collectively, namely: that the verdict was contrary to law; that the verdict was not based upon sufficient evidence; and the court erred in not directing a verdict for Presley.
The evidence discloses that Presley, driving a car belonging to one Jerry Hawkey, drove into a filling station. Hubert Hall was a passenger in the automobile driven by Presley. Presley drove away from the station. Very shortly thereafter the automobile collided with a utility pole.
Police investigating the accident, as well as several other witnesses, testified that Presley was pinned inside the car behind the steering wheel. They further testified that there was no one else in or about the wreck.
The crux of Presley's argument is that the injuries he sustained were not compatible with being pinned behind the steering wheel or the pattern of blood splattered about the automobile. He posits that there was reasonable doubt that the driver may have been Hall, whose presence at the wreck scene was unaccounted for. The argument is of no avail because the jury received testimony regarding Presley's driving the car prior to the accident from which they could properly infer the necessary unauthorized control as required by IC 35--17--5--3(1)(a), Ind.Ann.Stat. § 10--3030(1)(a).
Presley further argues that there is no direct proof that he took the automobile. Possession of the vehicle, shortly after it was stolen, is evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer that it was Presley who committed the theft. See Hancock v. State (1971), Ind., 268 N.E.2d 743, Vaughn v. State (1971), Ind., 266 N.E.2d 219.
Presley...
To continue reading
Request your trial