Taylor v. State
| Decision Date | 05 March 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 869S186,869S186 |
| Citation | 256 Ind. 92,267 N.E.2d 60 |
| Parties | Kenneth Wayne TAYLOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Michael T. Dugan, II, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Mark Peden, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Defendant was charged with first degree burglary. A trial by jury resulted in a finding of guilty as charged. Defendant was sentenced to the Indiana State Reformatory for not less than ten (10) nor more than twenty (20) years.
Appellant first contends the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the verdict. For that reason we set forth the substantive portions of the evidence.
On the morning of August 24, 1966 at approximately 10:00 a.m. the defendant and an accomplice were seen by several witnesses suspiciously walking and driving up and down Gerard Drive in Indianapolis, Indiana. One witness saw them enter the front of a residence located on Gerard Drive, after the accomplice used a screwdriver to pry the front door of the residence open. Three witnesses saw them run from the rear of the house carrying a large box into a field behind the house. Another witness saw them leaving in a car licensed to the defendant. A witness followed a path made by the two through the field behind the house and under some weeds found the box which the witnesses had seen being carried from the house. The box contained valuable old coins, a screwdriver and a pair of gloves. A short while later the defendant's car was located and he and an occupant were placed under arrest. Before trial, defendant's companion was extradited to Kentucky on a charge of first degree murder. All the witnesses testified at trial as to what they had seen, and the screwdriver and gloves were admitted in evidence. Evidence showed that the screwdriver fit the pry marks on the door. We find the evidence amply supported the verdict of the jury.
The appellant objected to the introduction as evidence the screwdriver and gloves found in the box. From the evidence related above it appears that the items were relevant to the evidence and the issues in the case. Therefore, we find no merit in the appellant's contention.
Finally it is contended that the defendant is entitled to a new trial because of newly discovered evidence. For such a ground to be sufficient it must first be shown that through no failure of diligence on the part of appellant was this evidence not discovered prior to trial....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beyer v. State
...such as to raise a strong presumption that, in all probability, it will bring about an opposite result at another trial. Taylor v. State (1971), Ind., 267 N.E.2d 60; Marshall v. State (1970), Ind., 258 N.E.2d 628; Spears v. State (1970), Ind., 254 N.E.2d 196; Fultz v. State, supra. Assuming......
-
Williams v. State, 671S163
...appear that the trial court could not reasonably have reached a conclusion that a different result was not probable. Taylor v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 92, 267 N.E.2d 60; Fultz v. State (1968), 250 Ind. 43, 233 N.E.2d 243; Beyer v. State (1972), Ind., 280 N.E.2d It was not essential to the St......
-
Bledsoe v. State
...the same rules should apply. These require a showing of reasonable diligence in procuring the evidence at the trial (Taylor v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 92, 267 N.E.2d 60; Farley v. State (1962), 243 Ind. 445, 185 N.E.2d 414) that such evidence is competent, (Jones v. State (1974), Ind., 312 N......
- Craig v. State