State v. Schroeppel, 29821
| Decision Date | 14 December 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 29821,29821 |
| Parties | STATE of Indiana, Appellant, v. Fred SCHROEPPEL, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Walter O. Lewis, Deputy Prosecuting Atty., J. Gordon Gibbs, Prosecuting Atty., 55th Judicial Circuit, Danville, Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Frank R. Ryan, Danville, for appellee.
This is an appeal by the state of Indiana from the decision and ruling of the trial court, in a criminal case, sustaining the motion of the defendant for a discharge made at the close of the state's evidence, and the judgment rendered thereon discharging the defendant.
The defendant, appellee, was charged, by affidavit, with the crime of Petit Larceny, in connection with the theft of a storage battery.
While this court does not weigh evidence, on the reserved question of law submitted by the State, we are constrained to agree with the State that the evidence adduced by the State proved the corpus delicti. Mason v. State, 1908, 171 Ind. 78, 85 N.E. 776, 16 Ann.Cas. 1212; Davidson v. State of Indiana, 1933, 205 Ind. 546, 187 N.E. 376.
The record in this case shows that the battery allegedly stolen by the defendant was by him sold the morning after the alleged theft.
The State as an appellant also claims that the court erred in sustaining the appellee's motion for discharge 'for the reason that the defendant was not identified in court as the person who committed the crime charged in the affidavit.' The evidence shows that the prosecuting witness stated that after he discovered his battery was stolen, he followed the tracks from his truck from which the battery was taken to the property and home where the defendant was residing; and that he had known the defendant personally for many years. The evidence further shows that witness, Leon Shorr, a scrap and metal buyer, stated that
The evidence further shows that at barious times Fred Schroeppel, the appellee (defendant below), was referred to from time to time as 'the defendant' during the trial. We may assume the defendant was present in court since the law requires his presence during the trial and no issue is made on that point. It is well settled that a defendant may be identified by name. No mention is made during the trial of any person other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Iseton v. State
...defendant is present at trial, witnesses need not point to the defendant to establish the requisite identification. State v. Schroeppel, 240 Ind. 185, 162 N.E.2d 683 (1959) (witness referred to both "Schroeppel" and "defendant" and said that the defendant was present in the courtroom); O'Br......
-
State v. Lewis
...479, 4 N.E.2d 193 (appeal sustained), State v. Torphy, (1940) 217 Ind. 383, 388, 28 N.E.2d 70 (appeal sustained), State v. Schroeppel, (1959) 240 Ind. 185, 162 N.E.2d 683 (appeal sustained), State v. Patsel, (1959) 240 Ind. 240, 163 N.E.2d 602 (appeal There is no difference between a judgme......
-
McChristian v. State
...It is recognized that a defendant may be identified by name. Preston v. State, (1972) 259 Ind. 353, 287 N.E.2d 347; State v. Schroeppel, (1959) 240 Ind. 185, 162 N.E.2d 683. Further, the defendant testified that he was present, carried a gun, and shot at Smith. There was, therefore, ample e......
-
Cummings v. State, No. 13A04-0501-CR-43 (IN 5/17/2006)
...to identify a defendant at trial by name. O'Brien v. State, 422 N.E.2d 1266, 1271 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981) (citing State v. Schroeppel, 240 Ind. 185, 187, 162 N.E.2d 683, 684 (1959)). Identification may also be established by circumstantial evidence alone if the evidence meets the required burd......