Taylor v. State, 971S271
| Decision Date | 07 February 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 971S271,971S271 |
| Citation | 260 Ind. 64,291 N.E.2d 890 |
| Parties | Keith Richard TAYLOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
William Dougherty, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theo. L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Mark Peden, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This is an appeal from a conviction of robbery (I.C.1971, 35--13--4--6, being Burns' § 10--4101) at a trial conducted in the Marion Criminal Court, Honorable Saul I. Rabb, presiding. Appellant was sentenced to not less than ten nor more than twenty years at the Indiana State Reformatory. He bases his appeal on the contention that the evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain the conviction.
Evidence introduced by the State at trial showed that one Sharon Murphy was the manager of Rix Roast Beef Restaurant on the night of March 7, 1971. She testified that she first saw the appellant at around 8:00 p.m. when he asked her for an employment application. Miss Murphy stated that appellant stayed in the restaurant for about one half hour and left without turning in the application.
At about midnight the same night Miss Murphy was closing the restaurant when she noticed appellant sitting in one of the booths. Appellant gave Miss Murphy an application for employment which was only partially filled-in. Miss Murphy explained that she could not accept the application unless it was entirely completed. Appellant replied that she had better take a look at it anyway and when she did so she discovered a note attached to the rear of the paper which read,
Miss Murphy further testified she was afraid and did not move at first. Appellant became more insistent and showed her a pistol he had in his pocket. Finally he put the gun in her back and led her into the back area where he forced her to open the safe. Appellant then locked Miss Murphy and three other employees in a walk-in cooler. A subsequent accounting disclosed that $864.13 had been taken from the safe and that this money was the property of Rix Systems Inc.
Initially, we must again reiterate that when we are called upon to decide a question concerning the sufficiency of the evidence of a particular conviction we will not weigh the evidence nor resolve questions of credibility of witnesses, but will look to that evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom which support the finding of the trial court. Smith v. State (1970), 254...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Duckworth
...[of being an habitual offender], we will affirm the conviction. Glover v. State, (1970) 253 Ind. 536, 255 N.E.2d 657, Taylor v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 64, 291 N.E.2d 890. Twyman, 431 N.E.2d at 779. We therefore must decide whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the sta......
-
Staton v. State
...could infer that appellant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Glover v. State, (1970) 253 Ind. 536, 255 N.E.2d 657; Taylor v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 64, 291 N.E.2d 890. The record shows that J.H. testified that on July 29, 1979, Staton, her uncle, took her to a bridge, pulled down her pa......
-
Lloyd v. State
...trier of fact could conclude that a defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, we will affirm the conviction. Taylor v. State, (1970) 260 Ind. 64, 291 N.E.2d 890; Glover v. State, (1970) 253 Ind. 536, 255 N.E.2d The evidence most favorable to the verdict here shows that after first pro......
-
Fryback v. State
...could infer that appellant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Glover v. State, (1970) 253 Ind. 536, 255 N.E.2d 657; Taylor v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 64, 291 N.E.2d 890. An act is done purposely if it is willed and designed with a plan that it be done and is done with an awareness of prob......