Rowe v. State, No. 573S81

Docket NºNo. 573S81
Citation262 Ind. 250, 314 N.E.2d 745
Case DateJuly 26, 1974
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 745

314 N.E.2d 745
262 Ind. 250
William A. ROWE, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 573S81.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
July 26, 1974.

[262 Ind. 251]

Page 746

Joseph A. Williams, Fort Wayne, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., John H. Meyers, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

DeBRULER, Justice.

Appellant was convicted of Committing a Felony (robbery) while Armed with a Deadly Weapon (I.C.1971, 35--13--4--6, being Burns § 10--4101, and I.C.1971, 35--12--1--1, being Burns § 10--4709) after a trial without a jury in the Allen Superior Court, Honorable Robert L. Hines presiding. He was sentenced to a determinate sentence of twenty years [262 Ind. 252] imprisonment. The following grounds are raised in his appeal: (1) The evidence submitted below was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain his conviction; (2) The trial court erroneously

Page 747

refused to grant appellant's in-trial motion for the production of a picture display used by the police in an out-of-court identification procedure; (3) The trial court erroneously admitted a police constructed composite drawing; (4) The sentence imposed by the trial court is disproportionate to the nature of the crime in contravention of Art. 1, § 16, of the Indiana Constitution and the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The evidence most favorable to the State discloses that Cyril Laycoff was the owner and bartender of a tavern located in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Shortly before 2:00 a.m. on March 28, 1972, Laycoff began cleaning up the tavern in preparation for closing for the night. At that time there were three other people remaining in the bar: his wife barbara, Dean Prugh and a man identified by Laycoff as the appellant. Laycoff testified that the appellant had been drinking at the bar for approximately two hours and that he had served him several beers over the course of the night.

While Laycoff was placing some empty bottles in a create the appellant left his barstool, walked to the end of the bar where Laycoff was working and pulled a .45 calibre automatic pistol from underneath his coat. He tossed a bag at Laycoff and ordered him to fill it with money. The appellant also told Prugh to keep his hands on top of the bar. Laycoff testified that he filled the bag with approximately $1600.00 and the appellant left by the back door of the tavern. He further testified that the appellant appeared to be twenty-seven or twenty-eight years of age at the time of the incident. Both Prugh and Laycoff's wife substantiated Laycoff's testimony concerning the holdup and identified the appellant as the perpetrator. Three other witnesses testified that they were in Laycoff's tavern that night. All three left prior to the [262 Ind. 253] robbery, but they all identified appellant as being present in the bar that night.

Before turning to the appellant's contention regarding the insufficiency of the evidence in his case, we should again point out that when called upon to decide this issue it is not our function as an appellate court to weigh the evidence introduced at the trial or to decide questions concerning the credibility of witnesses testifying at the trial. Priola v. State (1973), Ind., 292 N.E.2d 604. Our proper role is to look to the evidence most supportive of the verdict and determine whether that evidence, along with the reasonable inferences which a trier of fact might draw from it, has established all the necessary elements of the offense charged. Smith v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 401, 260 N.E.2d 558. With these general principles in mind we now turn to the facts raised by this particular appeal.

The statutes and affidavit under which appellant was convicted requires the establishment of three elements: 1. The taking of an article of value from another by a person over sixteen years of age, 2. by placing that person in fear and 3. While armed with a dangerous weapon. The State in this case produced direct eye-witness testimony that appellant, who was approximately twenty-seven years old at the time of the incident, took $1600.00 of Cyril Laycoff's money by pointing a .45 calibre automatic pistol at him and thereby placing him in fear. Such testimony is clearly sufficient to establish the necessary elements of this offense. Schuster v. State (1973), Ind., 302 N.E.2d 496; Cottingham v. State (1973), Ind., 303 N.E.2d 268.

Appellant's next contention concerns his motion to produce made during the trial. A portion of Cyril Laycoff's testimony concerned the investigatory period following the robbery, but prior to the arrest of a suspect. Laycoff testified that he had been shown...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 practice notes
  • Kindred v. State, No. 685S224
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 28, 1989
    ...court must grant the discovery motion unless the State makes a showing of paramount interest in non-disclosure. Rowe v. State (1974), 262 Ind. 250, 314 N.E.2d 745; Sexton v. State (1972), 257 Ind. 556, 276 N.E.2d 836. There is no question here that the defendant satisfied the first criterio......
  • Cobb v. State, No. 778S142
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 7, 1980
    ...judiciary unless they exceed constitutional boundaries. Thomas v. State, (1976) 264 Ind. 581, 585, 348 N.E.2d 4, 7; Rowe v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 250, 256, 314 N.E.2d 745, 749. We must also remember that the jury's decision was merely a recommendation, one which was not binding on the sent......
  • McFarland v. State, No. 2-177A33
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • January 22, 1979
    ...police agent unaware of its presence); Cox v. State, (1978) Ind., 372 N.E.2d 176 (defendant pulled a small handgun); Rowe v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 250, 314 N.E.2d 745 (defendant pointed a .45 calibre automatic pistol). See also, Asocar v. State, (1969) 252 Ind. 326, 247 N.E.2d 679 (under p......
  • Mills v. State, No. 2-277A45
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • September 5, 1978
    ...cannot have prejudiced Mills in the preparation of his defense, as such material is clearly discoverable under Rowe v. State (1974), 262 Ind. 250, 314 N.E.2d 745. We find in this failure, therefore, no grounds for [177 Ind.App. 438] Mills' second assignment of error is the refusal of the tr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • Kindred v. State, No. 685S224
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 28, 1989
    ...court must grant the discovery motion unless the State makes a showing of paramount interest in non-disclosure. Rowe v. State (1974), 262 Ind. 250, 314 N.E.2d 745; Sexton v. State (1972), 257 Ind. 556, 276 N.E.2d 836. There is no question here that the defendant satisfied the first criterio......
  • Cobb v. State, No. 778S142
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 7, 1980
    ...judiciary unless they exceed constitutional boundaries. Thomas v. State, (1976) 264 Ind. 581, 585, 348 N.E.2d 4, 7; Rowe v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 250, 256, 314 N.E.2d 745, 749. We must also remember that the jury's decision was merely a recommendation, one which was not binding on the sent......
  • McFarland v. State, No. 2-177A33
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • January 22, 1979
    ...police agent unaware of its presence); Cox v. State, (1978) Ind., 372 N.E.2d 176 (defendant pulled a small handgun); Rowe v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 250, 314 N.E.2d 745 (defendant pointed a .45 calibre automatic pistol). See also, Asocar v. State, (1969) 252 Ind. 326, 247 N.E.2d 679 (under p......
  • Mills v. State, No. 2-277A45
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • September 5, 1978
    ...cannot have prejudiced Mills in the preparation of his defense, as such material is clearly discoverable under Rowe v. State (1974), 262 Ind. 250, 314 N.E.2d 745. We find in this failure, therefore, no grounds for [177 Ind.App. 438] Mills' second assignment of error is the refusal of the tr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT