Stocklin v. State
| Decision Date | 27 April 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 3--1075A234,3--1075A234 |
| Citation | 345 N.E.2d 863,169 Ind.App. 49 |
| Parties | Robert STOCKLIN, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Milton Hafner, Ligonier, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, James N. Shumacker, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Robert Stocklin was found guilty of possession of stolen property of less than $100.00 in value under IC 1971, 35--17--5--3(1)(f) and (2)(a) (Burns Code Ed.). He was sentenced to the custody of the Indiana State Department of Corrections for a period of from one (1) to five (5) years under IC 1971, 35--17--5--12(1) (Burns Code Ed.). On appeal, Stocklin challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. Specifically, Stocklin contends there is insufficient evidence that he obtained control over stolen property knowing the property to have been stolen by another. We agree and reverse.
IC 1971, 35--17--5--3(1)(f) and (2)(a) (Burns Code Ed.) provides:
'A person commits theft when he (1) knowingly:
'(f) obtains control over stolen property knowing the property to have been stolen by another, which knowledge may be inferred from the possession of such stolen property, wherever the theft may have occurred; . . . and
'(2) . . . (a) intends to deprive the owner of the use or benefit of the property. . . .'
We are well aware that when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support Stocklin's conviction, this Court may not weigh the evidence presented at the trial below or decide questions concerning the credibility of witnesses. We view only the evidence most favorable to the State, together with all reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom, to see if there is sufficient evidence of probative value to establish all the necessary elements of the offense. Young v. State (1975), Ind., 332 N.E.2d 103; Liford v. State (1975), Ind.App., 328 N.E.2d 443. Under IC 1971, 35--17--5--3(1)(f) and (2) (a), the State must show (1) that appellant knowingly obtained control; (2) over stolen property; (3) knowing the property to have been stolen by another; (4) with intent to deprive the owner permanently of the use and benefit of this property. Cochran v. State (1970), 255 Ind. 374, 265 N.E.2d 19; Sacks v. State (1973), Ind.App., 300 N.E.2d 356. Although IC 1971, 35--17--5--3(1)(f) states that 'knowledge may be inferred from the possession of such stolen property . . .,' possession of stolen goods, by itself, does not provide sufficient evidence that the accused had knowledge that the goods in question were stolen. Miller v. State (1968), 250 Ind. 338, 236 N.E.2d 173; Wilson v. State (1973), Ind.App., 304 N.E.2d 824; see Hargraves v. State (1972), 153 Ind.App. 543, 288 N.E.2d 194.
Viewing the evidence in light of the above standards of review, the evidence most favorable to the State establishes the following. On June 20, 1974, Morris Garber discovered that four radiators, which he kept in stock as part of his business, were missing. He reported the theft of the radiators to the Indiana State Police. On June 26, 1974, Officer Lester Alligood took him to Kendallville Iron and Metal where he picked out his four radiators from a pile of approximately 35 to 50 radiators. Kendallville Iron and Metal had a receipt for these four radiators which was signed by one 'Bob Stocklin' on June 21, 1974. Officer Alligood obtained a warrant for the arrest of Robert Stocklin, and as Alligood was driving Stocklin to the Noble County Jail pursuant to execution of the arrest warrant, Stocklin admitted that he sold these four radiators to Kendallville Iron and Metal. Stocklin told Officer Alligood that he purchased the radiators from an individual who had brought the radiators to his home and that he could not remember the man's name. Robert Stocklin did not testify at trial.
It is clear under the above...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gaddie v. State
...its mere possession. In point of fact, the Third District's statement in those cases contradicts its holding in Stocklin v. State (3d Dist.1976) Ind.App., 345 N.E.2d 863. Apparently cognizant of, and possibly dissatisfied with, this common law distinction between larceny and receiving stole......
-
Andrews v. State, 1-1185A295
...Ind.App., 441 N.E.2d 1015, 1016; Anderson v. State (1980), Ind.App., 406 N.E.2d 351, 352, trans. denied; Stocklin v. State (1976), 169 Ind.App. 49, 50, 345 N.E.2d 863, 864, trans. Andrews was convicted of recklessly remaining in a voting booth longer than one minute. Indiana Code section 3-......
-
Maynard v. State
...Ind.App., 441 N.E.2d 1015, 1016; Anderson v. State (1980), Ind.App., 406 N.E.2d 351, 352, trans. denied; Stocklin v. State (1976), 169 Ind.App. 49, 50, 345 N.E.2d 863, 864, trans. Theft is defined in Indiana Code section 35-43-4-2(a) (Burns 1985). The State is required to prove that a defen......
-
Turentine v. State
...for by the state may not be drawn. Holtel v. State (1st Dist. 1972) 155 Ind.App. 1, 290 N.E.2d 775, 777. See also Stocklin v. State (3d Dist. 1976) Ind.App., 345 N.E.2d 863; Corrao v. State (3d Dist. 1972) 154 Ind.App. 525, 290 N.E.2d The evidence in the record before us would suggest that ......