Schuster v. State, 472S43
| Docket Nº | No. 472S43 |
| Citation | 302 N.E.2d 496, 261 Ind. 299 |
| Case Date | October 31, 1973 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Page 496
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
[261 Ind. 300] Barrie C. Tremper, Public Defender, Thomas L. Ryan, Deputy Public Defender, Fort Wayne, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Stephen J. Cuthbert, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
DeBRULER, Justice.
This is an appeal from a conviction of the Commission of a Robbery while Armed (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 by jury in the Allen Circuit Court, Honorable Herman F. Busse presiding. Appellant was sentenced to a determinate sentence of fiftten years in prison. His sole contention is that the evidence produced at his trial is insufficient as a matter of law to support his conviction.
The State produced two primary witnesses at the trial: Harry Fonner, the victim of the robbery, and George Kearney, an alleged accomplice of the appellant. Fonner testified that on February 6, 1971, he left the Cat's Meow Bar at about 10:00 P.M.
Page 497
In the parking lot of the bar he noticed a car parked next to his pick-up truck with a young boy sitting inside. The boy waved at him and Fonner thought he recognized the boy as a laborer he once hired for his construction company. Fonner got into the front seat of the car but realized this was not the same boy; however he stayed in the car exchanging conversation. After some minutes the boy asked Fonner if he was a homosexual. Fonner replied he was [261 Ind. 301] not and asked the boy what he was doing in the parking lot at that time of night. The boy replied he was waiting for his father who was drinking in another nearby tavern. Fonner testified that he told the boy he was going to wait until his father came back to the car and inform him of the boy's question concerning homosexuality. Fonner stated that he then placed his arm around the boy to restrain him from leaving the car.Some minutes later the car door opened and a girl got into the car. Fonner decided to get out of the car but when he did so he was confronted by two men who shoved him back against the car. One man threatened to kill Fonner if he moved and Fonner saw the man holding a pistol in his hand. Fonner identified this man as the appellant. The other man was subsequently identified as George Kearney.
Appellant handed the gun to the girl and the men searched Fonner taking the keys to the truck, his wallet, which contained about $50.00 and several credit cards. Fonner was ordered back into the car and was driven along with the boy to an apartment by Kearney. The appellant and the girl left in Fonner's pick-up truck in order to purchase tires for the appellant's car with Fonner's credit cards.
Fonner testified that after waiting at the apartment with Kearney for some time appellant and the girl returned with his truck. The two men then demanded that Fonner make out checks for each of them from his checkbook which they had found and Fonner testified that he therefore wrote them two checks in the amount of $125.00 each.
Fonner stated that he was then driven by Kearney and the boy to a restaurant on the outskirts of Fort Wayne and told to wait there for appellant and the girl who would return his truck. After waiting approximately one-half hour Fonner contacted the police.
The State's other main witness was George Kearney who identified himself as appellant's partner on the night of the incident. Kearney testified that he was in a tavern with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rowe v. State, No. 573S81
...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 Appellant's next contention concerns his motion to produce made during the trial. A portion of ......
-
Tom v. State, No. 1073S206
...painted white is disregarded, we have, as the only evidence of his guilt, the facts that a certificate of title to an automobile [261 Ind. 299] once belonging to him was found in the stolen vehicle and that he was acquainted with and had previously transacted business with Hickman. This is ......
-
Heflin v. State, No. 776
...years of age; (2) by placing one in fear; and (3) while armed with a dangerous or deadly [267 Ind. 429] weapon. Schuster v. State, (1973) 261 Ind. 299, 302 N.E.2d 496. The information adequately set forth each of these elements. A "handgun" is considered to be a dangerous or deadly weapon w......
-
Reinhardt v. State, No. 29A02-0708-CR-676.
...or information must be proved as charged. . . ." Lewis, though not specifically, was certainly impliedly overruled by Schuster v. State, 261 Ind. 299, 302 N.E.2d 496 (Ind.1973). Schuster stated that Lewis "concerned an older form of common law pleading and the rule in that case has not been......
-
Rowe v. State, No. 573S81
...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 Appellant's next contention concerns his motion to produce made during the trial. A portion of ......
-
Tom v. State, No. 1073S206
...painted white is disregarded, we have, as the only evidence of his guilt, the facts that a certificate of title to an automobile [261 Ind. 299] once belonging to him was found in the stolen vehicle and that he was acquainted with and had previously transacted business with Hickman. This is ......
-
Heflin v. State, No. 776
...years of age; (2) by placing one in fear; and (3) while armed with a dangerous or deadly [267 Ind. 429] weapon. Schuster v. State, (1973) 261 Ind. 299, 302 N.E.2d 496. The information adequately set forth each of these elements. A "handgun" is considered to be a dangerous or deadly weapon w......
-
Reinhardt v. State, No. 29A02-0708-CR-676.
...or information must be proved as charged. . . ." Lewis, though not specifically, was certainly impliedly overruled by Schuster v. State, 261 Ind. 299, 302 N.E.2d 496 (Ind.1973). Schuster stated that Lewis "concerned an older form of common law pleading and the rule in that case has not been......