Rodman v. State
Decision Date | 13 February 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 1--772A30,1--772A30 |
Citation | 292 N.E.2d 288,155 Ind.App. 224 |
Parties | Wilburn RODMAN, Defendant-Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
James Pendland, Mitchell, for defendant-appellant.
Theo.L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Lynda F. Huppert, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff-appellee.
The defendant-appellant(Rodman) is appealing his conviction of being an accessory to Theft and Auto Banditry.The trial was by jury.
The alleged errors raised in the appeal are: there was insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction, the court erred in failing to direct a verdict in favor of Rodman, and it was error to allow certain testimony by the Deputy Sheriff.
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 or jury.Washington v. State (1971), Ind., 271 N.E.2d 888;Davis v. State (1971), Ind., 271 N.E.2d 893;Grimm v. State (1970), Ind., 258 N.E.2d 407;Sharp v. State (1970), Ind., 260 N.E.2d 593;andLangley v. State(1968), 250 Ind. 29, 232 N.E.2d 611.
Rodman's primary argument is directed to the alleged lack of positive identification of Rodman, the car, and the goods found in the car.
The evidence reveals that Mr. and Mrs. Stevenson were awakened by the sound of breaking glass at about 4 A.M. on the morning of July 14th, 1971.They arose and observed someone inside the Springville Recreation Hall which was located across the road from their home.Mrs. Stevenson called the Sheriff's office while Mr. Stevenson observed a car driving slowly back and forth on the road separating the Stevenson residence and the recreation hall.Mr. Stevenson testified it was the same car each time.After several such trips, the car pulled into the parking area in front of the recreation hall.The person in the hall came out through the broken glass door and got into the car.He was carrying a box.
The car hurriedly left the parking area just as Deputy Couch drove up.Mr. Stevenson watched the Deputy begin pursuit of the car.The Deputy succeeded in stopping the car about a mile and a half down the road.The defendantWilburn Rodman was driving and Bruce Rodman was the passenger.
Deputy Couch discovered twenty-nine 45 RPM records, twenty-one Swisher Sweet Cigars, and several cartons of various brands of cigarettes were found in the back seat of the car.
The proprietor of the Springville Recreation Hall inventoried his stock, and testified that about thirty 45 RPM records, twenty-eight cigars, and nine or ten cartons of cigarettes had been stolen.He further testified that the glass of the front door to the building was broken and that he had not given permission for anyone to be on the premises at that time.
Identification as having been seen in the vicinity of a burglary and fleeing upon being interrupted by the police is evidence of guilt.Thomas v. State (1970), Ind., 261 N.E.2d 224.
Additionally, an inference of guilt may be drawn from possession of stolen property shortly after a crime.Vaughn v. State (1971), Ind., 266 N.E.2d 219.
...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Mack v. State
...had been stolen. Linnemeier v. State, supra, 330 N.E.2d 373; Taylor v. State, supra, 284 N.E.2d 775. Thus, in Rodman v. State (1973), 155 Ind.App. 224, 292 N.E.2d 288, a case in which the defendant had been seen in the vicinity of a burglary, the inference of guilt was drawn from his posses......
-
Frith v. State
...which may be considered as circumstantial evidence of guilt. Thomas v. State (1970) 254 Ind. 561, 261 N.E.2d 224; Rodman v. State (1973) Ind.App., 292 N.E.2d 288. We think there was clearly probative evidence to support the jury's Both Appellants allege error in the trial court's dismissal ......
-
Bush v. State
...guilt. Coleman v. State, (1976) 265 Ind. 357, 354 N.E.2d 232; Cox v. State, (1975) 167 Ind.App. 168, 338 N.E.2d 319; Rodman v. State, (1973) 155 Ind.App. 224, 292 N.E.2d 288. In Rodman, supra, in a statement applicable to the case at bar, Judge Robertson stated at 155 Ind.App. 225, at 292 N......