Raymer v. State, 30408
| Decision Date | 17 January 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 30408,30408 |
| Citation | 244 Ind. 644,195 N.E.2d 350 |
| Parties | James RAYMER, alias James Davis, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Chester H. Wilson, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Carl Van Dorn, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This case is an appeal from a judgment entered on a finding of the court convicting appellant of second degree burglary. The error assigned is the overruling of the motion for new trial.
Appellant contends the evidence was insufficient to sustain the court's finding of guilty. To consider this question it is necessary that we review the evidence favorable to appellee (the State) viz:
On May 6, 1962, the Kroger store at 38th Street and Post Road in Marion County, Indiana, was closed at 9:00 p. m. and at such time the doors and windows were in good repair.
At 4:30 a. m. the following morning merchant police officer Knight found the back door of the aforementioned Kroger store forced open and entry made. The officer entered the store and noticed a quantity of cigarettes missing and the drawers of the front office broken into. The officer called for assistance and city police officer Allen drove to the store, entering by the rear door which had been pried open. A search of the store was conducted and thereafter officer Allen noticed the appellant lying 15 feet outside the north side of the store at the rear where the entry had been accomplished. Appellant was lying face down, and when commanded to rise he got up and raised his hands.
Appellant had by his side, before he surrendered to officer Allen, two tire irons, a loaded 32 cal. revolver and a pair of canvas work gloves. A large shipping box containing many cartons of cigarettes taken from the Kroger store was also found just outside the store not more than ten feet from appellant as he lay on the ground. Officer Allen testified that appellant, although not specifically admitting he broke into the store, did state shortly after his arrest that nobody assisted him in breaking into the store. Appellant further stated to officer Allen that he had paid some fellow $5.00 to bring him to the store, but he didn't know who he was. This was contrary to appellant's testimony at the trial that he didn't know how he came to the Kroger store. Officer Allen stated appellant was neither drunk nor asleep when found by him lying on the ground at the scene.
As to physical evidence there was testimony from officer Allen that the pry marks on the door, which was pried open, were made by the tire tools found at appellant's side when he was apprehended. The manager of the Kroger store testified as to the evidence of breaking and entering, as follows, viz:
'* * * walking up to the door, which is a double door, the middle piece had been rolled down off, which is bolted on, the padlock had been snapped, also the night lock was dug out of place; * * * going in observing in the middle of the floor was laying a bunch of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parsons v. State
...459; Tyler v. State (1973), Ind.App., 292 N.E.2d 630. See also, Bradley v. State (1964), 244 Ind. 630, 195 N.E.2d 347; Raymer v. State (1964), 244 Ind. 644, 195 N.E.2d 350. Particularly is this true if the accused is in exclusive possession of the stolen property shortly after the larceny. ......
-
Wright v. State
...N.E.2d 466; Tait v. State (1963), 244 Ind. 35, 188 N.E.2d 537; Bradley v. State (1964), 244 Ind. 630, 195 N.E.2d 347; Raymer v. State (1964), 244 Ind. 644, 195 N.E.2d 350; Luther v. State (1912), 177 Ind. 619, 98 N.E. There is obviously more than mere presence of Wright in the area . . . as......
-
Walker v. State, 268
...N.E.2d 537. In deciding, then, whether the evidence was sufficient, we are bound by the following rule as stated in Raymer v. State (1964), 244 Ind. 644, 195 N.E.2d 350: 'The test of reasonable doubt which appellant has referred to in his brief, was for the trial court in weighing the evide......
-
Leitner v. State
...N.E.2d 210.' Also, the appellee contends that a conviction may rest entirely upon circumstantial evidence, citing Raymer v. State (1964), 244 Ind. 644, 195 N.E.2d 350, 351, and authorities cited therein. Further, the State contends it is well settled Indiana law that a jury may draw all the......