State v. Moore
| Decision Date | 28 June 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 3-1278A341,3-1278A341 |
| Citation | 391 N.E.2d 665,181 Ind.App. 242 |
| Parties | STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Enzie MOORE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
David Capp, Cohen & Thiros, Merrillville, for defendant-appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Richard Albert Alford, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for plaintiff-appellee.
Enzie Moore was charged and convicted by jury of Second Degree Burglary. He was committed to the Indiana Department of Corrections for a period of not less than two nor more than five years.
On appeal, Moore contends that the trial court failed to require the State to lay an appropriate evidentiary foundation before admitting critical exhibits. As such, the admitted exhibits were irrelevant and their cumulative effect constituted prejudice.
We affirm.
The facts relevant to our disposition are as follows: Enzie Moore and co- defendant Wardell Golden were apprehended at 3:30 a. m. after being ordered by police to "come out" of a hole smashed through the back wall of the Bridge Bottom Liquor Store. Both were immediately placed under arrest. At the scene, police confiscated four cases of liquor and a sledgehammer, lying next to the hole on the outside of the building. The evidence was marked and taken to the property room at the police station. One of the police officers conducted an on-scene investigation of a white car parked across the street from the liquor store. He testified the car was registered to Golden.
At trial, the sledgehammer and photographs of the confiscated liquor, the hole in the back wall and the car were offered into evidence over Moore's objection. On appeal, he contends that this demonstrative evidence was not relevant due to the State's failure to connect it with him.
In order to be relevant, evidence must make the desired inference more probable than it would be without the evidence. Pirtle v. State (1975), 263 Ind. 16, 323 N.E.2d 634. Evidence may be found relevant even though its ability to persuade is slight. Smith v. Crouse-Hinds Company (1978), Ind.App., 373 N.E.2d 923. Any fact which legitimately tends to connect a defendant with a crime is admissible even if only a reasonable inference may be drawn from it. Steadman v. State (1979), Ind.App., 385 N.E.2d 1200.
Moore asserts, on appeal, that the State improperly laid a foundation by failing to connect the proffered evidence with him. Wigmore discusses the necessity of establishing this connecting link:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maxwell v. State
...is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed upon appeal except for an abuse thereof. State v. Moore (1979), Ind.App., 391 N.E.2d 665. Finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court, we uphold its Sufficiency of Foundation Finally, Maxwell contends that the......
-
Gooden v. State
...demonstration that the ruling was contrary to the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. State v. Moore (1979), Ind.App., 391 N.E.2d 665. Here Gooden made no such showing especially in light of the fact that he was permitted to introduce oral testimony that Alexan......
-
Carman v. State
...would have been admissible. Here, it is sufficient that the offered exhibit was linked to the scene of the crime. See, State v. Moore, (1979) Ind.App., 391 N.E.2d 665. That the connection with the defendant is inconclusive goes to the weight of the evidence but does not "(P)ositive proof or......
-
Elks Club v. State
...effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Misenheimer v. State (1978),268 Ind. 274, 374 N.E.2d 523; State v. Moore (3d Dist. 1979) Ind.App., 391 N.E.2d 665. In the instant case, the trial court's determination to admit the photographs was based upon a consideration of contradi......