Sargent v. State, No. 2--1272A133
| Docket Nº | No. 2--1272A133 |
| Citation | 297 N.E.2d 459, 156 Ind.App. 469 |
| Case Date | June 25, 1973 |
Page 459
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
[156 Ind.App. 470]
Page 460
Marshall E. Williams, Indianapolis, for appellant.Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Robert F. Colker, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
BUCHANAN, Presiding Judge.
This is an appeal by defendant-appellant, Gregory Sargent (Sargent), from a conviction of Entering To Commit A Felony (Theft), claiming insufficient evidence as to identification and intent to commit theft.
We affirm.
The facts and evidence most favorable to the State are:
At approximately 2:10 P.M. on May 3, 1972, Carol Peterson (Peterson), proprietor of a defunct massage parlor located in a building at 2514 W. 16th Street in Indianapolis, visited the building for a routine security check. Everything appeared to be in order. The doors were locked and none of the windows [156 Ind.App. 471] were broken. After a five-minute inspection the departed, making certain that both the front and back doors were locked.
Later that same afternoon, Officer Gilbert E. Coyle (Officer Coyle) of the Indianapolis Police Department received a complaint that someone was breaking glass into these premises and he proceeded there, arriving about 3:00 P.M.
As his squad car approached, he observed Sargent standing approximately one foot away from the front door of the massage parlor. Alighting from his vehicle, Officer Coyle then stood face to face with Sargent at a distance of about four feet for approximately ten to twelve seconds. He noticed that a plate glass window in the front door had been broken and that glass was scattered on the ground around the front door.
Upon observing Officer Coyle, Sargent turned around, Opened the previously locked front door, ran through the building and out the back door, which was also previously locked. A second man accompanied Sargent as he hastily exited the rear door. Sargent fled in an easterly direction, while his companion fled in the opposite direction with Officer Colye in hot pursuit. Sargent escaped, but his companion was captured.
Officer Coyle then radioed the following description of the man who had escaped, presumably Sargent:
'A negro male, approximately 22 or 23 years old, 6 foot to 6, 2 inches, 155 pounds * * * wearing a light colored jacket and dark slacks, and a light colored shirt with dark stripes.'
Page 461
Later, Officer Coyle found a clock radio and a vibrator about twenty yards from the rear of the building. Peterson positively identified both items and further stated that the radio had been in the building earlier that afternoon but that she did not know about the vibrator.
The day after the incident, Officer Coyle identified Sargent's photograph from a group of twelve pictures presented to him [156 Ind.App. 472] at Police Headquarters. At the trial Officer Coyle identified Sargent as the man who escaped from the massage parlor on May 3, 1972, and further stated that he was able to recognize Sargent's photograph because he viewed him from a distance of about four feet as he arrived at the massage parlor.
Sargent was charged by Affidavit with Second Degree Burglary, but was convicted by a jury on July 10, 1972, of Entering To Commit A Felony, i.e., Theft, and was sentenced to a term of not less than one nor more than five years.
ISSUE ONE. Was Officer Coyle's identification evidence sufficient to establish Sargent's identity as the man who escaped from the massage parlor on May 3, 1972?
ISSUE TWO. Was the evidence sufficient to prove that Sargent possessed intent to commit theft at the time he entered the massage parlor?
As to ISSUE ONE, Sargent contends that Officer Coyle's identification evidence was insufficient to establish Sargent's identification beyond a reasonable doubt for the reason that it was uncorroborated and therefore unreliable.
The State, on the other hand, contends that Officer Coyle's identification evidence was sufficient to sustain Sargent's identification beyond a reasonable doubt for the reason that Officer Coyle was able to positively identify Sargent in person, by description, and by photograph.
As to ISSUE TWO, Sargent contends that the evidence of his flight by itself does not prove that he entered the massage parlor with the intent to commit theft.
The State argues this court may not reweigh the evidence and that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hahn v. State, No. 18A02-8801-CR-26
...to carry" and later in another room, "ain't nothing but a bunch of dolls in here"); Sargent v. State (1973) 2d Dist., 156 Ind.App. 469, 297 N.E.2d 459, cited in Justice v. State, supra (flight plus property from inside premises found outside under circumstances disclosing tha......
-
Parsons v. State, No. 2--1272A138
...circumstantial evidence to prove the essential [159 Ind.App. 166] elements of Second Degree Burglary. Sargent v. State (1973), Ind.App., 297 N.E.2d 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), ......
-
Clayton v. State, No. 2--476A165
...the possession of burglary tools. Tinsley v. State (3d Dist. 1975), Ind.App., 330 N.E.2d 399; Sargent v. State (2d Dist. 1973), Ind.App., 297 N.E.2d 459; Goodrich v. State (3d Dist. 1973), Ind.App., 302 N.E.2d 885. In the case before us, the change in position of the sign stands alone, and ......
-
Windle v. State, No. 2--973A208
...Guyton v. State (1973), Ind.App., 299 N.E.2d 233; Luther v. State (1912), 177 Ind. 619, 98 N.E. 640; Sargent v. State (1973), Ind.App., 297 N.E.2d 459; Bradley v. State (1972), Ind.App., 287 N.E.2d 759; Johnson v. State (1972), Ind., 284 N.E.2d 517; Turner v. State (1970), 255 Ind. 427, 265......
-
Hahn v. State, No. 18A02-8801-CR-26
...to carry" and later in another room, "ain't nothing but a bunch of dolls in here"); Sargent v. State (1973) 2d Dist., 156 Ind.App. 469, 297 N.E.2d 459, cited in Justice v. State, supra (flight plus property from inside premises found outside under circumstances disclosing tha......
-
Parsons v. State, No. 2--1272A138
...circumstantial evidence to prove the essential [159 Ind.App. 166] elements of Second Degree Burglary. Sargent v. State (1973), Ind.App., 297 N.E.2d 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), ......
-
Clayton v. State, No. 2--476A165
...the possession of burglary tools. Tinsley v. State (3d Dist. 1975), Ind.App., 330 N.E.2d 399; Sargent v. State (2d Dist. 1973), Ind.App., 297 N.E.2d 459; Goodrich v. State (3d Dist. 1973), Ind.App., 302 N.E.2d 885. In the case before us, the change in position of the sign stands alone, and ......
-
Windle v. State, No. 2--973A208
...Guyton v. State (1973), Ind.App., 299 N.E.2d 233; Luther v. State (1912), 177 Ind. 619, 98 N.E. 640; Sargent v. State (1973), Ind.App., 297 N.E.2d 459; Bradley v. State (1972), Ind.App., 287 N.E.2d 759; Johnson v. State (1972), Ind., 284 N.E.2d 517; Turner v. State (1970), 255 Ind. 427, 265......