Snyder v. State
| Decision Date | 31 March 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 676S196,676S196 |
| Citation | 268 Ind. 122,373 N.E.2d 1101 |
| Parties | Woodrow SNYDER, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., J. Roland Duvall, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Defendant (Appellant) was convicted in a trial by jury, on two counts of kidnapping (Ind. Code § 35-1-55-1 (Burns 1975)), and This direct appeal presents two issues:
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.
(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 that they would be able to identify the defendants but that subsequently they had identified him in a lineup. At trial, each victim said that while they could not relate their identifications to any particular characteristic of either the defendant's physical appearance or his voice, they were, nevertheless, able to identify him from his general build and appearance and the sound of his voice. Another witness, who had been the victim of a very similar crime in the same locality approximately three weeks later, also identified the defendant as one of his abductors. He, too, acknowledged similar difficulty with the identification and made his upon the basis of the general appearance and sound of the voice.
Admittedly, the identification of the defendant from the above related testimony leaves much to be desired. However, the credibility and the weight to be given to their testimony were matters for the trier of fact to determine and are not to be re-judged on appeal. Robinson v. State, (1977) Ind., 365 N.E.2d 1218.
Contrary to Defendant's claim, the verdict need not rest alone upon the aforementioned identification testimony. The defendant's accomplice also testified. He acknowledged his part in the crimes and testified that he had plea bargained with the State and been sentenced. In his prior confession, he had stated that the defendant was his accomplice. From the witness stand, however, he said that he had been lying about the defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams v. State
...occurred 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 Corre......
- Wilson v. State
-
Allen v. State
...v. State, 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 fir......
-
Finney v. State
...on the evidence at the close of the State's case-in-chief, he waives any possible error in the overruling of the motion. Snyder v. State (1978), Ind., 373 N.E.2d 1101. Defendant's final allegation of error is that the verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence. The standard of review ......