Richardson v. State, 1171S316
| Decision Date | 06 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 1171S316,1171S316 |
| Citation | 258 Ind. 607,283 N.E.2d 361 |
| Parties | Michael Weston RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Alexis T. Cholis, South Bend, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Stephen D. Clase, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was charged by affidavit with second degree burglary. Trial by jury resulted in a verdict of guilty, whereupon appellant was sentenced to the Indiana State Prison for not less than two nor more than five years.
The record reveals the following:
South Bend Police Officers Switalski and Szuba while on patrol on March 10, 1971, at about 2:30 A.M. saw two persons standing in front of the Ohio Supermarket. They also noticed a third person cleaning the windshield of an automobile two stores north of the market. The officers drove around the building to the alley in the rear, where they separated but maintained radio contact.
Officer Switalski testified that the appellant approached the door of the market. At that time because of an approaching car, the officer stepped out of view behind the building. When he again observed the appellant the appellant was inside the market. The officer observed appellant leave the market carrying two sacks. Officer Switalski redioed Officer Szuba, who arrested the appellant on the sidewalk outside the building. At the time of his arrest appellant had in his possession two paper bags containing 46 packages of cigarettes of miscellaneous brands and $35.54 in change, some rolled and some loose.
John V. Miller, owner of the market, testified that he had personally closed the store the evening before, and that he had left between $35 and $40 in change in the cash register.
At the time of appellant's arrest the front door glass of the market was broken. Cigarette packs were strewn on the floor and there was no change in the cash register.
Appellant's sole argument is that the verdict is contrary to law in that there is insufficient evidence to support the verdict. It is appellant's position that although Officer Switalski saw him go up to the door of the market and later saw him inside, he did not see him break the glass nor actually proceed through the doorway. He also calls our attention to Officer Switalski's testimony stating that the appellant was wearing a three-quarter length coat, while Officer Szuba testified that appellant was wearing a jackt. Appellant himself testified that he was wearing a short jacket and not a three-quarter length coat. He further testified that a person whose name he did not know had sold him the two bags containing cigarettes and coins.
This Court has stated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bledsoe v. State
...N.E.2d 612; Williams v. State (1973), Ind., 297 N.E.2d 805; Bright v. State (1972), 259 Ind. 495, 289 N.E.2d 128; Richardson v. State (1972), 258 Ind. 607, 283 N.E.2d 361; Newman v. State (1972), 257 Ind. 691, 278 N.E.2d 573. When we review the evidence presented, in the light most favorabl......
-
McCauley v. State
...248 Ind. 95, 223 N.E.2d 576. The jury did not believe McCauley's claim of self-defense, which it had a right to do. Richardson v. State (1972), Ind., 283 N.E.2d 361; Moore v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 23, 256 N.E.2d The evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and the judgment of the......
- Tomlin v. State
-
Lee v. State, 3--872A43
...the jury was not required to believe the testimony of the Appellant which is the primary basis of the argument here. Richardson v. State, Ind., 283 N.E.2d 361 (1972), and Moore v. State, 254 Ind. 23, 256 N.E.2d 907 When the evidence is considered here in the light most favorable to the Stat......