Soladine v. State

• Decision Date: 22 June 1981
• Docket Number: No. 1-480A95,1-480A95
• Citation: 421 N.E.2d 1142
• Parties: Ronald D. SOLADINE, Appellant (Defendant Below) v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

Page 1142

421 N.E.2d 1142

Ronald D. SOLADINE, Appellant (Defendant Below) v.STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).

No. 1-480A95.

Court of Appeals of Indiana, Fourth District.

June 22, 1981.

Larry D. Combs, Franklin, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Aimee L. Kolze, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

MILLER, Judge.

Defendant-appellantRonald D. Soladine was charged with theft as follows:

"... on or about the 16th day of May, 1979 at the County of Johnson, State of Indiana, Ronald D. Soladine, then and there unlawfully and knowingly exerted unauthorized control over property of Dr. Edward Pease, to-wit: four long barrel antique Kentucky Rifles and a wooden ammunition box with rope handles by having unauthorized possession of said property with attempt to deprive Dr. Edward Pease of the value and use thereof; ...."

Soladine was convicted of this Class D felony on the 25th day of September, 1979 by a jury and sentenced to four years imprisonment.We initially note that Soladine does not claim the evidence was insufficient to support the theft charge.He asserts in his brief that the sole question before this Court on appeal "is whether an uncorrected error of law occurred at the trial by the admission of testimony and evidence relating to collateral criminal offenses and criminal activities not at issue in the case herein."Appellant's briefp. 19.Specifically, he refers to evidence that 1) a burglary took place during which the items listed in the Information were allegedly taken from Dr. Pease's home; 2) other items were stolen from Dr. Pease's home in addition to those charged in the Information; and 3) the truck used in the burglary was stolen shortly before the burglary.

We affirm.

FACTS

The residence of Dr. and Mrs. Edward Pease of Johnson County, Indiana was burglarized on May 16, 1979 between the hours of 9 a. m. and 3 p. m. Among the items taken were 23 weapons, including Kentucky Rifles, double barrel shotguns and other guns, a Derringer pistol, an ammunition box with rope handles, fishing equipment and a metal detector.During the investigation of the burglary certain documents (consisting of a 1979 Indiana Vehicle Registration Certificate, a 1979 Vehicle Inspection Ticket, and a 1978 Vehicle Registration Certificate) were found on the driveway of the Pease home.These documents referred to a 1974 Chevrolet Truck owned by one Harold DeVore of Mooresville, Indiana (Morgan County).His green and white 1974 Chevrolet Truck had been reported stolen in Morgan County the night before.Buddy Gibson, a friend of Soladine, testified that, on the day of the burglary at about 2 P.M. at the home of co-defendant Strode, he saw Soladine unloading items from a green and white 1974 Chevy Truck and among the items were several types of guns, an ammunition box with rope handles, a Derringer pistol, fishing poles, a CB scanner and a metal detector.Donna Ingle, who knew Soladine, testified that on the evening of the burglary he showed her a Derringer and he also mentioned having a hard time getting rid of the Kentucky Rifles.

DECISION

With regard to the evidence concerning the stolen property, we do not believe the court committed error in its admission.Evidence of other crimes may be admissible, in spite of its tendency to show the accused might be guilty of another crime, if it proves a fact in issue and its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect.Porter v. State, (1979) Ind., 397 N.E.2d 269.

In Maldonado v. State, (1976)265 Ind. 492, 355 N.E.2d 843, where a co-defendant testified that a car used in the robbery charged had been stolen by the defendant, the court held:

"Evidence showing the commission of other crimes by the accused, separate and distinct from the crime charged, is generally inadmissible to prove the guilt of the accused.Cobbs v. State, (1975)264 Ind. 60, 338 N.E.2d 632;Layton v. State, (1966)248 Ind. 52, 221 N.E.2d 881.Evidence which is otherwise competent and relevant and which tends to prove or disprove a fact in issue is not inadmissible even though it tends to show guilt of another crime, especially if the two crimes are related.Jenkins v. State, (1975)263 Ind. 589, 335 N.E.2d 215.

The Court of Appeals has stated the essence of this rule succinctly in Alexander v. State, (1976)167 Ind.App. 688, 691, 340 N.E.2d 366, 368:

'In allowing such evidence in certain instances, the court seeks to permit the full disclosure of all relevant facts which have some probative value, not for the purpose of showing the defendant to be a "criminal-type," but to present to the trier of fact all evidence which tends to prove that the defendant committed the crime charged.'(Citations omitted.)

As to the automobile theft, we are of the opinion that this action was sufficiently closely related to the robbery charged to be admissible as what our cases refer to as res gestae of the offense charged, Grimes v. State, (1970)258 Ind. 257, 280 N.E.2d 575;Carver v. State, (1962)243 Ind. 183, 183 N.E.2d 592, and what McCormick characterizes as 'happenings near in time and place' which 'complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context.'McCormick, Evidence § 190 at 448(2d ed. 1972).

In Byrd v. State, (1965)246 Ind. 255, 204 N.E.2d 651, evidence was admitted in a case of inflicting injury in the commission of a robbery to show that the defendant had stolen the automobile and revolver used in the offense charged.This Court held that the evidence was properly admitted:

'It is always proper to show that the instruments used in a crime were owned or possessed by the defendant.Corroborative evidence of how and where he obtained such instruments is certainly proper.'246 Ind. at 256, 204 N.E.2d at 651.

We find no error in admission of testimony concerning the stolen automobile."

Maldonado v. State, supra at 496-97, 355 N.E.2d at 846-47.

In the recent case of Armstrong v. State, (1980) Ind., 412 N.E.2d 1207, the defendant was charged with confinement and robbery, both Class D felonies.The victim had been accosted in a bowling alley parking lot and driven by the defendant a short distance when she escaped.The defendant then drove off in the victim's car.Evidence by the police officer revealed that he arrested the defendant at the city jail in Jackson, Mississippi 12 days after the offense occurred.The victim's uncle testified he obtained possession of her car (11 days after the abduction) from the parking lot of the Jackson, Mississippi police station.The defendant argued that this testimony was irrelevant and highly prejudicial but the Court rejected his contention as follows:

"...Further, '(e)vidence that is admissible for one purpose is not rendered inadmissible simply because it coincidentally discloses or suggests other criminal activity.'Samuels v. State, (1978)267 Ind. 676, 680, 372 N.E.2d 1186, 1188.Evidence which suggests other criminal acts may nevertheless be admissible to show the identity of the perpetrator of the charged crime.E. g., Norton v. State (1980) Ind., 408 N.E.2d 514;Porter v. State, (1979) Ind., 397 N.E.2d 269, 272.In addition, evidence of this type may be admissible if it also shows 'acts, statements, occurrences and circumstances substantially contemporaneous with the crime charged.'Lee v. State, (1977)267 Ind. 315,...