Steadman v. State, No. 3-578A133

Docket NºNo. 3-578A133
Citation385 N.E.2d 1200, 179 Ind.App. 456
Case DateFebruary 26, 1979
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

Page 1200

385 N.E.2d 1200
179 Ind.App. 456
Danny Lynn STEADMAN, Appellant-Defendant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
No. 3-578A133.
Court of Appeals of Indiana, Third District.
Feb. 26, 1979.

Page 1201

J. David Keckley, South Bend, for appellant-defendant.

Theo. L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Kenneth R. Stamm, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee-plaintiff.

STATON, Judge.

Danny Lynn Steadman was charged with conspiracy to commit a felony, to-wit: second degree burglary. 1 A jury found him guilty, and judgment was entered on the verdict. Later, he was sentenced to the Department of Corrections for an indeterminate term of two (2) to fourteen (14) years.

Two contentions of error are raised for our review:

(1) Did the court err in admitting State's exhibit number one into evidence?

[179 Ind.App. 457] (2) Was the evidence sufficient to support the verdict of the trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt?

We affirm.

I.

The Conspiracy

On June 1, 1977 South Bend police responded to an audible alarm at Eddy's Food Market. Upon arrival at the back of the market, they observed a man, Danny Lynn Steadman, by the trash dumpster. Steadman was immediately arrested. Two screwdrivers were found within two feet of the place where Steadman was arrested. After Steadman had been placed in a patrol car, a third screwdriver was found within four inches of the patrol car door. Later, the police apprehended Arthur Freel who was inside the market.

At Steadman's trial, police officer Thomas J. Lescz testified that Steadman told him that a man had fled from the market shortly before the police arrived; however, the description of the man fleeing the market changed every time Steadman attempted to describe him. Steadman further told police officer Lescz that he didn't know Freel who had been apprehended inside the market by the police a short time after their arrival. Later, he told police officer Lescz that he didn't want Freel apprehended by the police for the burglary of the market.

Freel pled guilty to second degree burglary before Steadman's trial. At the trial, Freel testified that he and Steadman had been "cruising around" in a friend's car earlier in the evening, and they stopped about a block from the market. Steadman followed Freel down an alley and then sat beside Freel on the roof of the market while Freel removed a two-by-two foot vent to gain entry. Freel told Steadman to stay outside while Freel entered the market. When Freel opened the market door on the ground floor twenty minutes later, he saw Steadman standing outside.

Page 1202

II.

Admission of Evidence

Steadman contends that State's exhibit number one was erroneously admitted because it was not material, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Harbison v. State, No. 682S246
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • August 31, 1983
    ...251 Ind. 182, 190-91, 240 N.E.2d 70, 75; Steffler v. State, (1952) 230 Ind. 557, 564-65, 104 N.E.2d 729, 733; Steadman v. State, (1979) 179 Ind.App. 456, 385 N.E.2d 1200, 1202. The evidence was sufficient to allow the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt, that shortly after they met the v......
  • Bennett v. State, No. 3-880A229
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 26, 1981
    ...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. A photograph of a person, place or thing is generally considered to be competent evidence of anything of which it is competent or relevant fo......
  • State v. Moore, No. 3-1278A341
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 28, 1979
    ...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 discusse......
3 cases
  • Harbison v. State, No. 682S246
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • August 31, 1983
    ...251 Ind. 182, 190-91, 240 N.E.2d 70, 75; Steffler v. State, (1952) 230 Ind. 557, 564-65, 104 N.E.2d 729, 733; Steadman v. State, (1979) 179 Ind.App. 456, 385 N.E.2d 1200, 1202. The evidence was sufficient to allow the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt, that shortly after they met the v......
  • Bennett v. State, No. 3-880A229
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 26, 1981
    ...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. A photograph of a person, place or thing is generally considered to be competent evidence of anything of which it is competent or relevant fo......
  • State v. Moore, No. 3-1278A341
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 28, 1979
    ...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 discusse......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT