Stock v. State, 30887

Decision Date22 September 1966
Docket NumberNo. 30887,30887
PartiesHarry STOCK, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

William S. Mercuri, Indianapolis, for appellant.

John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen., Donald R. Ewers, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.

RAKESTRAW, Chief Justice.

The appellant was charged with theft of a 1964 Chevrolet sedan belonging to one Paul Renfro. After waiving trial by jury, the case was tried by the court, and the appellant was found guilty as charged. He was fined $1.00 and given a sentence of 360 days at the Indiana State Farm.

On appeal, his only specification of error is the overruling of his motion for new trial, and his motion for new trial alleges only that the finding of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence and that it is contrary to law. It is therefore necessary to review briefly the evidence which tends to support the finding of the trial court.

Paul Renfro, the owner of the automobile allegedly stolen, was the only witness for the state. He testified that he left his automobile at 6:00 o'clock on the morning of February 5, 1965, at the Chevrolet plant on White River Parkway in Indianapolis. He next saw his automobile that evening in a garage in the 800 block of North Jefferson Street. He saw the appellant outside of the garage in which he found his car. When he found his car the hood was removed, the engine was pulled and was lying on the floor of the garage, and the appellant was attempting to remove the transmission. The appellant, Harry Stock, told him at that time that if he had known the car was his, he would not have taken it. The appellant also offered to return the car to the witness with the engine and transmission out. The appellant also told the witness that he had a wife and two kids and he wanted to get a friend out of jail, and that he was going to get the money by selling parts from the car.

The witness later called the police, and when they went back to the garage, the car was removed. The witness later saw his car on a lot on Delaware Street. The witness testified that he had not given the appellant any authority to exercise control over his car. He testified that he identified the car from the license plate and from the trunk of the car which had certain dents in it as well as from the color and interior of the car.

The appellant testified in his own defense. In his testimony, he denied taking the automobile, stated that the car on which he and his companion were working was not the automobile alleged to have been stolen, and denied the conversations testified to by Mr. Renfro. His companion or accomplice also testified to essentially the same things as the appellant.

The appellant argues that it is the duty of this court to review the evidence and pass on the credibility of the testimony. He argues that the evidence for conviction is weak, and that the evidence given by him and his corroborating witness 'deserves the same weight as the testimony of the state's one uncorroborated witness.'

It is of course true that before there can be a conviction, there must be some substantial evidence of probative value to induce a belief of defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in the minds of the court or jury trying the case. Baker v. State (1956), 236 Ind. 55, 138 N.E.2d 641. We are of the opinion, however, that the testimony of the witness Renfro, if believed by the trial court, would constitute substantial evidence of probative value.

With reference to the sufficiency of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 cases
  • Brewer v. State, 968S146
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • November 14, 1969
    ...598, 194 N.E.2d 727. Moreover, this court will not weigh the evidence nor determine the credibility of the witnesses. Stock v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 532, 219 N.E.2d 809. Premeditation is an essential element in the proof of first degree murder. Ind.Ann.Stat. § 10--3401 (1956 Repl.). It has......
  • Emery v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • April 25, 1968
    ...to induce a belief of a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in the minds of the court or jury trying the case.' Stock v. State (1966), Ind., 219 N.E.2d 809, 811. In oral argument, counsel for the appellant has stated that in order for this conviction to be sustained, this Court must......
  • McGill v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • May 19, 1969
    ...not weigh the evidence or determine the credibility of the witnesses. Davis v. State (1968), Ind., 232 N.E.2d 867; Stock v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 532, 219 N.E.2d 809; Barnes v. State (1965), 246 Ind. 485, 205 N.E.2d 539. Furthermore, we will consider only that evidence most favorable to th......
  • Lambert v. State, 668
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • July 24, 1969
    ...evidence or determine the credibility of the witnesses. McGill v. State, supra; Davis v. State (1968) Ind., 232 N.E.2d 867; Stock v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 532, 219 N.Ed.2d 809; Barnes v. State (1965), 246 Ind. 485, 205 N.E.2d 539. Moreover, we are bound to consider only that evidence most ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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