Smith v. State
| Citation | 260 N.E.2d 558,22 Ind.Dec. 197,254 Ind. 401 |
| Decision Date | 24 July 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 268,268 |
| Parties | William Braxton SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. S 19. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Frederick B. Robinson, Indianapolis, for appellant.
John J. Dillon, former Atty. Gen., John Price, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a conviction of second degree burglary following a trial by jury in Division One of the Criminal Court of Marion County.
The crime of second degree burglary is defined by Acts 1941, ch. 148, § 4, being Burns Ind.Stat.Ann. § 10--701:
'(b) Whoever breaks and enters into * * * or any building or structure other than a dwelling house or place of human habitation, with the intent to commit a felony therein, shall be guilty of burglary in the second degree, and upon conviction shall be imprisoned not less than two (2) years nor more than five (5) years and be disfranchised and rendered incapable of holding any office of trust or profit for any determinate period: Provided, however, That the court shall have power to suspend prison sentence and place the defendant on probation in accordance with existing law.'
Appellant filed a motion for new trial which was overruled and which brings about this appeal. Appellant urges two grounds for reversal: 1) The verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence. 2) The verdict of the jury is contrary to law. Since both grounds of the above motion raised substantially the same questions, the appellant grouped the allegations together in his argument and this Court will do likewise in this opinion.
The appellant herein is challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. The appellant alleges that the appellee failed to prove a necessary element of the crime of Second Degree Burglary, the element being the 'intent to commit a felony therein.' In reviewing this allegation this Court will not weigh the evidence nor resolve questions of credibility, but will look to that evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom which support the verdict of the trial court. Glover v. State (1970), Ind., 255 N.E.2d 657.
The conviction will be affirmed if from that viewpoint there is evidence of probative value from which a reasonable trier of fact could infer that the appellant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Fair v. State (1969), Ind., 250 N.E.2d 744.
The evidence shows that on January 11, 1969, at approximately 2:00 a.m. a police radio call directed certain Indianapolis...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stroud v. State
...9, 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; Smith v. State (1970), Ind., 260 N.E.2d 558; and Langley v. State (1968), 250 Ind. 29, 232 N.E.2d 611. A conviction must be affirmed, if having applied the rule, there is......
-
Bruce v. State
...which the trier of fact could reasonably infer the existence of each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Smith v. State, (1970) 254 Ind. 401, 260 N.E.2d 558." James v. State, (1976) Ind., 354 N.E.2d 236, Where the evidence of guilt is essentially circumstantial, the question f......
-
Fleenor v. State
...of fact could infer that appellant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Fair v. State (1969) Ind. , 250 N.E.2d 744." Smith v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 401, 260 N.E.2d 558. Here is the evidence most favorable to the verdict. Within two hours prior to the offenses, witnesses Chatham, Griffin, ......
-
Parsons v. State
...inferences drawn therefrom which support the judgment of the trial court. Felts v. State (1973), Ind.App., 298 N.E.2d 462; Smith v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 401, 260 N.W.2d 558; Holding v. State (1967), 244 Ind. 75, 190 N.E.2d 660; Myers v. State (1960), 240 Ind. 641, 168 N.E.2d There was suf......