Sumner v. State, No. 882S305

Docket NºNo. 882S305
Citation453 N.E.2d 203
Case DateSeptember 14, 1983
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 203

453 N.E.2d 203
Ronald SUMNER, Appellant (Defendant Below),
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).
No. 882S305.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Sept. 14, 1983.

Page 204

William L. Soards, Soards & Carroll, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Amy Schaeffer Good, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

PRENTICE, Justice.

Defendant (Appellant) was convicted, after trial by the court, of Armed Robbery causing serious bodily injury (Class A Felony), Ind.Code Sec. 35-42-5-1 (Burns Supp.1982), and was sentenced to thirty (30) years imprisonment. This direct appeal presents three issues for review:

1) Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the finding and judgment of the trial court.

2) Whether the trial court erred in denying Defendant a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence.

3) Whether the trial court erred in overruling Defendant's motion for discharge for delay in bringing him to trial.

On January 27, 1981 Robert E. Wilson was canvassing for new customers for his home shopper service. Mr. Wilson sent two assistants door-to-door with a single product; if the customer indicated an interest, Mr. Wilson, himself, would step-in to make the sale and send his assistants on to other houses.

At approximately 2:30 p.m. Mr. Wilson's assistants approached the residence at 1830 North Ingram, Indianapolis. An interest in the product, rat poison, being indicated, Mr. Wilson approached the house and was invited inside. Present were four (4) men later identified as Mark Anthony Early, Timothy Bunnell, Mark Steven Easler, and Defendant. One of the men asked Mr. Wilson to show him where, in the kitchen, he should place the rat poison. After approximately one-and-one-half minutes in the kitchen, Mr. Wilson turned around and saw the other three men standing at the kitchen door. One of the men, not Defendant, was holding a sawed-off twenty-two (.22) caliber rifle. Mr. Wilson was shot once in the abdomen and fell to the floor. The men

Page 205

removed his wallet, a thirty-eight (.38) caliber revolver, and his wristwatch. He was then dragged out the front door of the house. The four men fled through the side door and down a back alley.

* * *

* * *

ISSUE I

Defendant first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding and decision of the trial court. Defendant argues that all the evidence used to convict him was entirely circumstantial and inferential, and "merely leads to conjecture, speculation, and inference that the defendant-appellant was involved."

"Upon a review for sufficient evidence, this Court will look only to the evidence most favorable to the State and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. If the existence of each element of the crime charged may be found therefrom beyond a reasonable doubt, the verdict will not be disturbed. In such a review, we will not weigh conflicting evidence nor will we judge the credibility of witnesses." Loyd v. State, (1980) Ind., 398 N.E.2d 1260, 1264, cert. denied, (1980) 449 U.S. 881, 101 S.Ct. 231, 66 L.Ed.2d 105 (citations omitted).

At trial Mr. Wilson positively identified Defendant as one of the four men aforementioned. He stated that Defendant was definitely in the kitchen at the time of the shooting, standing only a few feet from the man with the rifle. A co-defendant, Mark Easler, testified that Defendant had told Bunnell to invite Mr. Wilson in and to take him into the kitchen. Defendant then persuaded Mark Early to take the rifle into the kitchen and to rob Wilson. Easler also testified that Defendant removed Wilson's wallet and handgun, took the money out of the wallet, and ran from the house through a side door. According to Easler the rifle had been acquired by Defendant earlier that day from Easler's aunt, and both the Defendant and Bunnell had earlier expressed an intention to rob someone.

Thus, in addition to Mr. Wilson's testimony placing the Defendant at the scene, there was testimony by a co-defendant that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Campbell v. State, No. 1184S446
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 20, 1986
    ...of France. A robbery conviction may be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Sumner v. State (1983), Ind., 453 N.E.2d 203. Campbell notes that France testified that he lied in two of his three statements to protect himself and others. The town marshall testified that F......
  • Smith v. State, No. 583S168
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • May 14, 1985
    ...the defendant has thereby acquiesced in the trial date set. Perry v. State (1984), Ind., 471 N.E.2d 270; Sumner v. State (1983), Ind., 453 N.E.2d 203. Insofar as no timely objection was made by defendant to the trial date being scheduled beyond the seventy-day time limit, defendant's reques......
  • Young v. State, No. 54A01-0109-CR-333.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • March 28, 2002
    ...phrase in describing the defendant's obligation to object. See, e.g., Randall v. State, 474 N.E.2d 76, 84 (Ind. 1985); Sumner v. State, 453 N.E.2d 203, 207 (Ind.1983); Heflin v. State, 267 Ind. 427, 430, 370 N.E.2d 895, 897 (1977); Johnson v. State, 708 N.E.2d 912, 915 (Ind. Ct.App.1999), t......
  • Vasquez v. State, No. 02S00-0011-CR-711.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 16, 2001
    ...This can be proven through the testimony of an accomplice. See Griffin v. State, 501 N.E.2d 1077, 1079 (Ind.1986); Sumner v. State, 453 N.E.2d 203, 205 In this case, Defendant acknowledged that she, Casiano, and Luna sought to steal items such as Johnson's VCR. Casiano 762 N.E.2d 95 testifi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Campbell v. State, No. 1184S446
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 20, 1986
    ...of France. A robbery conviction may be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Sumner v. State (1983), Ind., 453 N.E.2d 203. Campbell notes that France testified that he lied in two of his three statements to protect himself and others. The town marshall testified that F......
  • Smith v. State, No. 583S168
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • May 14, 1985
    ...the defendant has thereby acquiesced in the trial date set. Perry v. State (1984), Ind., 471 N.E.2d 270; Sumner v. State (1983), Ind., 453 N.E.2d 203. Insofar as no timely objection was made by defendant to the trial date being scheduled beyond the seventy-day time limit, defendant's reques......
  • Young v. State, No. 54A01-0109-CR-333.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • March 28, 2002
    ...phrase in describing the defendant's obligation to object. See, e.g., Randall v. State, 474 N.E.2d 76, 84 (Ind. 1985); Sumner v. State, 453 N.E.2d 203, 207 (Ind.1983); Heflin v. State, 267 Ind. 427, 430, 370 N.E.2d 895, 897 (1977); Johnson v. State, 708 N.E.2d 912, 915 (Ind. Ct.App.1999), t......
  • Vasquez v. State, No. 02S00-0011-CR-711.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 16, 2001
    ...This can be proven through the testimony of an accomplice. See Griffin v. State, 501 N.E.2d 1077, 1079 (Ind.1986); Sumner v. State, 453 N.E.2d 203, 205 In this case, Defendant acknowledged that she, Casiano, and Luna sought to steal items such as Johnson's VCR. Casiano 762 N.E.2d 95 testifi......
  • 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