Snyder v. State, No. 676S196
| Docket Nº | No. 676S196 |
| Citation | 268 Ind. 122, 373 N.E.2d 1101 |
| Case Date | March 31, 1978 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Page 1101
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).
[268 Ind. 123] Richard G. Striegel, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., J. Roland Duvall, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
PRENTICE, Justice.
Defendant (Appellant) was convicted in a trial by jury, on two counts of kidnapping (Ind. Code § 35-1-55-1 (Burns 1975)), and
Page 1102
two counts of committing a felony (sodomy and robbery) while armed (Ind. Code § 35-12-1-1 (Burns 1975)). He was sentenced to two concurrent terms of life imprisonment upon the kidnapping counts, to imprisonment for a term of ten (10) years upon the armed felony (robbery) count and to imprisonment for a term of twenty (20) years upon the armed felony (sodomy) count. The sentences upon the armed felony counts were set to be served consecutively to the kidnapping sentences.[268 Ind. 124] This direct appeal presents two issues:
(1) Whether the verdicts are sustained by the evidence.
(2) Whether the sentences upon the armed felony convictions could be made to run consecutively to the sentences upon the kidnapping counts.
The defendant assigns error of the trial court in both overruling the motion for a directed verdict at the close of the State's case and overruling the same motion at the end of all of the evidence. His introduction of evidence waived error, if any, which may have been committed in the overruling of the motion at the close of the State's case. Hancock v. State, (1971) 256 Ind. 697, 271 N.E.2d 731; Warren v. State, (1963) 243 Ind. 508, 188 N.E.2d 108; Sypniewski v. State, (1977) Ind., 368 N.E.2d 1359.
The defendant's insufficiency argument is limited to challenging the credibility of the identification testimony by the victims of the crimes and another witness who had been a victim of a very similar crime committed in the same locality a short time later.
The victims, while parked at night in a secluded spot in their automobile were abducted by two masked men. One of the bandits wore a ski mask, and the other wore a stocking mask which prevented the victims' having a full undistorted view of either. They were held and abused for more than two hours, during which time the bandits conversed with the victims and with each other and were observed and heard by the victims.
The victims, at trial, identified the defendant as one of their abductors. They acknowledged, however, that several months earlier they had expressed a serious doubt...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. State, No. 377S186
...shall consider when imposing a sentence for a crime. This inadequacy allegedly resulted in a failure to fully and properly advise the [268 Ind. 122] court and therefore denied appellant due process and equal protection under the law. Appellant claims that such reports are mandatory and cann......
-
Adams v. State, No. 1077S755
...at the same time within the meaning of the statute. See Pruitt v. State, (1978) Ind., 382 N.E.2d 150, 153; Snyder v. State, (1978) Ind., 373 N.E.2d 1101. IV. Appellant's final argument concerns the denial, without a hearing, of his petition to file a Belated Amended Motion to Correct Errors......
-
Allen v. State, No. 1-1279A341
...supra, and that the sentencing judge is entitled to presume that he or she is sentencing a guilty person, Snyder v. State, (1978) Ind., 373 N.E.2d 1101. The question of whether or not the results of a polygraph test are admissible at the sentencing hearing is apparently one of first impress......
-
Moore v. State, No. 2-1177A426
...the defendant proceeded to offer evidence on his own behalf thus waiving any error on this question. Snyder v. State (1978), Ind., 373 N.E.2d 1101; Sypniewski v. State (1977), Ind., 368 N.E.2d 1359;Parker[178 Ind.App. 97] v. State (1976), Ind., 358 N.E.2d 110; Bush v. State (1978), Ind.App.......
-
Wilson v. State, No. 377S186
...shall consider when imposing a sentence for a crime. This inadequacy allegedly resulted in a failure to fully and properly advise the [268 Ind. 122] court and therefore denied appellant due process and equal protection under the law. Appellant claims that such reports are mandatory and cann......
-
Adams v. State, No. 1077S755
...at the same time within the meaning of the statute. See Pruitt v. State, (1978) Ind., 382 N.E.2d 150, 153; Snyder v. State, (1978) Ind., 373 N.E.2d 1101. IV. Appellant's final argument concerns the denial, without a hearing, of his petition to file a Belated Amended Motion to Correct Errors......
-
Allen v. State, No. 1-1279A341
...supra, and that the sentencing judge is entitled to presume that he or she is sentencing a guilty person, Snyder v. State, (1978) Ind., 373 N.E.2d 1101. The question of whether or not the results of a polygraph test are admissible at the sentencing hearing is apparently one of first impress......
-
Moore v. State, No. 2-1177A426
...the defendant proceeded to offer evidence on his own behalf thus waiving any error on this question. Snyder v. State (1978), Ind., 373 N.E.2d 1101; Sypniewski v. State (1977), Ind., 368 N.E.2d 1359;Parker[178 Ind.App. 97] v. State (1976), Ind., 358 N.E.2d 110; Bush v. State (1978), Ind.App.......