Taylor v. State

• Decision Date: 03 September 1981
• Docket Number: No. 680S189,680S189
• Citation: 425 N.E.2d 141
• Parties: James TAYLOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 141

425 N.E.2d 141

James TAYLOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.

No. 680S189.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Sept. 3, 1981.

Stephen C. Haas, Evansville, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Carmen L. Quintana, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

GIVAN, Chief Justice.

A jury found James Taylor guilty of Conspiracy to Commit Forgery. In a bifurcated proceeding, the jury also found appellant to be an habitual criminal.

This record indicates that the appellant took Sherlene Crenshaw, Theodore Weekly, and Juanita Crenshaw to Jerry's Market in Evansville to cash some checks which belonged to none of them. While in the car, Weekly gave Juanita an endorsed check and instructed her to go into the store, get some groceries and cash the check. She and the appellant went into the store and successfully carried out the plan.

Next, appellant and Weekly gave Sherlene the same instructions. Weekly gave the check to appellant, who asked Sherlene to endorse it. She testified that she refused to sign the check, but appellant endorsed it. Sherlene went into the store, picked up some groceries and went to the check-out counter. Before cashing the check, the store clerk noticed it was listed as a stolen check and immediately called a police officer. Sherlene and the police officer went out to appellant's car where the arrests were made. As a result, appellant was charged with forgery, conspiracy to commit forgery and an habitual criminal.

Appellant claims the verdicts were inconsistent and contrary to law since he was acquitted of the forgery charge and only convicted of the conspiracy to commit forgery. As this Court has previously stated, "(t)he gist of the offense of conspiracy ... is a criminal agreement of two or more persons, the object of which is the commission of a felony. It is not required that a felony actually be committed or even be attempted." Elmore v. State (1978) Ind., 382 N.E.2d 893, 898. This Court further stated in Woods v. State (1980) Ind., 413 N.E.2d 572, 577, a conspiracy is "concurrence of sentiment and cooperative conduct in the criminal enterprise ...". Here, the jury failed to find the defendant guilty of the actual forgery, but found that he actively participated in a scheme to cash two forged checks. The verdict was neither inconsistent nor contrary to law.

Appellant next contends the evidence was not sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction. Uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice will support a conviction. Kilgore v. State (1979) Ind., 391 N.E.2d 820. Although there were inconsistencies between the testimony of Juanita and Sherlene Crenshaw and their out-of-court statements, these inconsistencies went to the weight of the evidence and did not make them incredible as a matter of law. Haskett v. State (1979) Ind., 395 N.E.2d 229. It was for the jury to weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of the witnesses. Bond v. State (1980) Ind., 403 N.E.2d 812.

As long as the evidence and the inferences which may be drawn therefrom permit a reasonable trier of fact to find the existence of each element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction will stand. Robinson v. State (1977), 266 Ind. 604, 365 N.E.2d 1218. The evidence in this case adequately supports the conspiracy conviction.

Appellant claims the trial court erred in refusing to read to the jury his tendered instructions numbered four (4) and five (5). These instructions would have informed the jury that the accomplice testimony should be cautiously received and carefully scrutinized. In support of his claim, appellant refers to Newman v. State (1975) 263 Ind. 569, 334 N.E.2d 684 wherein this Court held that evidence that an accomplice had been granted immunity by the State in return for his testimony at trial, must be disclosed to the jury. The Court did not hold a special instruction on accomplice testimony must be given.

In Turner v. State (1972) 258 Ind. 267, 280 N.E.2d 621, 624, this Court specifically held the trial court's refusal to give an instruction to the jury identical to appellant's tendered instruction number four (4) in the instant case, was proper since such an instruction would "invade the province of the jury by commenting on the competency of or the weight to be given to the testimony of any...