Taylor v. State, 683S212
| Decision Date | 08 July 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 683S212,683S212 |
| Citation | 479 N.E.2d 1310 |
| Parties | Calvin TAYLOR, Jr., Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Terry C. Gray, Gary, for appellant (defendant below).
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Lee Cloyd, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee (plaintiff below).
This is a direct appeal from a conviction of robbery, a class B felony, Ind.Code Sec. 35-42-5-1 (Burns 1985 Repl.). The case was tried before a jury. Appellant was sentenced to a prison term of twelve years.
Appellant raises three issues on appeal: (1) whether the identification evidence is sufficient to sustain appellant's conviction; (2) whether the trial court erred by denying appellant's motion to suppress the in-court identification; (3) whether the trial court erred by denying appellant's motion to suppress his confession while subsequently granting the State's motion in limine to suppress any reference to appellant's statements.
These are the facts that tend to support the determination of guilt. On August 18, 1980, appellant, co-defendant, and an accomplice robbed the Graves brothers of stereo equipment which the brothers were licensed to sell. In the morning, David Graves approached the accomplice at a shopping mall parking lot to see if he wanted to buy stereo speakers. The accomplice said he wanted to buy a set and that he knew a couple of people who might also be interested. The accomplice went to appellant's house across the street and returned shortly thereafter with appellant and co-defendant. David Graves discussed the sale of the speakers with the men and agreed to meet them that afternoon to finalize the sale.
David Graves and his brother, Anthony Graves, met the men at the appointed time. Appellant told David that the owner of the El Dorado Lounge might be interested in buying some speakers. The accomplice rode over to the El Dorado Lounge with the Graves brothers while appellant and co-defendant drove over in their own car. While a man, presumably the owner of the lounge, looked at the speakers, he did not make a purchase. Appellant and co-defendant then left in their car but returned approximately ten minutes later. Appellant went to the opened sliding door of the Graves's van, pointed a gun at Anthony Graves, and said, "This is a stick-up." Appellant told the Graves brothers that if they didn't do what he said, he would kill them. The brothers managed to escape and called the police. While running away from the robbers, the brothers saw appellant drive away in their van. When their van was recovered shortly thereafter by the police, all of their stereo equipment was gone.
The Graves brothers told police detectives what had happened, described the men who robbed them, and the location of the house from which the robbers emerged. The police drove the brothers around the city in an attempt to identify the city truck which the accomplice used and to locate the appellant's home. After leading the police to appellant's home, the Graves brothers simultaneously recognized appellant and co-defendant, who happened to be standing in front of appellant's home with several other black men. After the brothers identified appellant and co-defendant to the police, the police asked the two men for identification but made no arrest at that time. On October 14, 1980, the police apprehended appellant and co-defendant for the present robbery charge.
At appellant's December 1982 trial, Anthony Graves was not able to make an unequivocal in-court identification of appellant as the robber. Anthony testified that appellant looked like the robber except that appellant's hairstyle and facial hair were not the same as the man who robbed him two years earlier. David Graves did positively identify appellant in court as the man who robbed him. A police officer also identified appellant in court as the man the Graves brothers pointed out to him on August 18, 1980.
Appellant claims that the identification evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. He maintains that the evidence was insufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator of the robbery for two reasons. One, Anthony Graves could not make a positive in-court identification that appellant was the man who robbed him. Two, cross-examination of David Graves resulted in discrepancies between his court testimony and previous deposition testimony, thereby impeaching his credibility and derivatively, his in-court identification of appellant as the robber.
A robbery conviction may be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of one eyewitness. Hill v. State (1983), Ind., 452 N.E.2d 932. Any discrepancies in witness testimony affect the weight of the evidence and credibility of the witness, issues which are beyond our scope of review. Moreover, the inability of a crime victim to identify appellant in court as the perpetrator of the offense is not dispositive of the question of sufficiency of identification...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Stanley, 14238
...by numerous courts throughout the nation. See, e.g., People v. Dingle, 174 Cal.App.3d 21, 219 Cal.Rptr. 707 (1985); Taylor v. State, 479 N.E.2d 1310 (Ind.1985); State v. Nuccio, 454 So.2d 93 (La.1984); State v. Collins, 297 A.2d 620 (Me.1972); Commonwealth v. Mandile, 397 Mass. 410, 492 N.E......
-
State v. James
...or reported with due precision; and incapable in their nature of being disproved by other negative evidence").30 See Taylor v. State, 479 N.E.2d 1310 (Ind.1985); Bradley v. Commonwealth, 439 S.W.2d 61 (Ky.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 974, 90 S.Ct. 1091, 25 L.Ed.2d 268 (1970); State v. Vern......
-
Williams v. State
...to the verdict together with all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom when considering the sufficiency of the evidence. Taylor v. State, 479 N.E.2d 1310 (Ind.1985). Defendant's claim that Joshua, not defendant, killed Rice was for the jury to determine. From the evidence they could have co......
-
Davies v. State
...or other improper influences so as to overcome the free will of the accused at the time he confessed. Id. (citing Taylor v. State, 479 N.E.2d 1310 (Ind.1985)). When we review the voluntariness of a confession, we take into consideration the entire record and look at the totality of the circ......
-
Social Capital and Protecting the Rights of the Accused in the American States
...Wash.2d814, 676 P.2d419 (1984)Standard for voluntariness of confession 11Lego v.Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 92 S. Ct. 619, Taylor v. State, 479 N.E.2d 1310 (Ind. 1985); State v. Vernon,385 So.2d 200 (La. 1980);30 L.Ed.2d 618 (1971) State v. Collins, 297 A.2d 620 (1972); Commonwealth v.Tavares, 38......