Sansom v. State
| Decision Date | 29 September 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 3-675A116,3-675A116 |
| Citation | 354 N.E.2d 336,171 Ind.App. 33 |
| Parties | Larry SANSOM and Jack K. Murphy, Jr., Defendants-Appellants, v. STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
John M. Lyons, Valparaiso, for defendants-appellants.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., K. Richard Payne, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for plaintiff-appellee.
Larry Sansom and Jack K. Murphy, Jr. defendants-appellants were convicted by a jury of the crimes of second degree burglary, IC 1971, 35-13-4-4 (Burns Code Ed.); automobile banditry, IC 1971, 35-12-2-1 (Burns Code Ed.); and theft, IC 1971, 35-17-5-3 (Burns Code Ed.). After receiving judgments of appropriate sentences for each conviction defendants brought this appeal claiming they were improperly accountable for a lesser included offense and that their convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence.
The record before us discloses that on January 18, 1974, one Hank Kopkey, the proprietor of the Kopkey Fur House in Winamac, Indiana, upon opening his establishment for the day, discovered that 411 mink pelts worth between $8 to $18 each, and 186 fox pelts averaging approximately $25 each, were missing from the drying room on the second floor. Kopkey's further inspection revealed that a hole had been ripped in the stairwell roof, high-powered ammunition was out of the counter and 'in neat piles on the floor'; and that all of his mink pelts were 'gone with the exception of an occasional mink here and there, maybe six or eight on the way downstairs.' Upon viewing the garage portion of the building he discovered a broken lock and automobile tracks in the sawdust floor.
After notifying the police, Kopkey contacted various fur dealers relative to the furs missing from his establishment and asked them to be on the alert for pelts from his area. Through one of these contacts, on January 25, 1974, the Missouri State Highway Patrol was advised that some of the Winamac furs were being sold to the Markham Fur Co. in Advance, Missouri. As a result, two patrolmen were sent to intercept Murphy and Sansom while they were attempting to sell furs to Mr. Markham. They observed '253 fox pelts stacked on the ground' and 106 mink pelts in the back seat of a 1973 black Monte Carlo Chevrolet bearing Indiana license plates. Appellants Murphy and Sonsom explained that they were trading locally, showing the patrolmen numerous mink pelts in the trunk of the car. As the patrolmen took appellants into custody, Sansom disclosed that there was $673 in cash 'under the floor mat on the passenger's side up near the fire wall' and asked that the money be retrieved. When asked where they obtained the money, appellants 'stated it had come from fur sales in the area.' Several days later, on January 29, 1974, Detective Beech of the Indiana State Police traveled to Advance, Missouri, and retrieved Murphy, Sansom, the fur pelts, the money, the automobile and several other items.
At trial, testimony was heard from one Jake Nice, a resident of Winamac, to the effect that he had skinned animals at the Kopkey Fur House for approximately 24 years. He identified certain furs retrieved from Advance, Missouri, as having been prepared by himself. He also identified a particular type of wire stretcher and string used at the Kopkey establishment.
Addressing first the question of whether there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction of appellants, it should be noted that this court may consider only that evidence most favorable to the State together with all logical and reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom. McAfee v. State (1973), 259 Ind. 687, 689, 291 N.E.2d 554. Possession of distinctive fur pelts by individuals acquainted with the ransacked premises cannot be claimed to be insufficient. Rance v. State (1975), Ind.App., 331 N.E.2d 40. O'Hara v. State (1975), Ind.App., 330 N.E.2d 396. Rather, it has been shown that substantial circumstantial evidence explaining the purloining of furs was available to support an inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to the offenses charged. Gregory v. State (1972), 259 Ind. 295, 286 N.E.2d 666.
Accordingly we are presented with the second asserted error of whether there was an impropriety in the sentence for the lesser included offense. Sansom and Murphy contend that second degree burglary is a lesser included offense of automobile banditry citing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State
...original registration in the owner's name and the original license plates in the van creates an inference of guilt); Sansom v. State, 171 Ind.App. 33, 354 N.E.2d 336 (1976) (reversed on other grounds 267 Ind. 33, 366 N.E.2d 1171(1977)) (possession of stolen furs seven days after theft by in......
-
Morgan v. State
...(The statute under which defendant was convicted did not distinguish between larceny and receiving stolen goods)); Sansom v. State, (1976) 171 Ind.App. 33, 354 N.E.2d 336, reversed on other grounds (1977) 267 Ind. 33, 366 N.E.2d 1171 (Defendant apprehended in Missouri with stolen furs seven......
-
Gibson v. State
...[The statute under which defendant was convicted did not distinguish between larcenty and receiving stolen goods]; Sansom v. State, (1976) 171 Ind.App. 33, 354 N.E.2d 336, reversed on other grounds (1977) 267 Ind. 33, 366 N.E.2d 1171 (Defendant apprehended in Missouri with stolen furs seven......
-
Hartman v. State
...court did not impose the statutory penalty for theft holding that it was included in the offense of automobile banditry. Sansom v. State (1976), Ind.App., 354 N.E.2d 336. Since the offense of third-degree burglary is not a felony but only a misdemeanor, and since the offense of automobile b......