Thomas v. State, 30883

• Citation: 229 N.E.2d 722,248 Ind. 447,14 Ind.Dec. 569
• Decision Date: 25 September 1967
• Docket Number: No. 30883,30883
• Parties: George E. THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 722

229 N.E.2d 722

248 Ind. 447

George E. THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.

No. 30883.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Sept. 25, 1967.

William C. Erbecker, Indianapolis, for appellant.

John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen., John F. Davis, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.

LEWIS, Judge.

On the 17th day of April, 1965, shortly before two o'clock in the morning, Officer Duckworth of the Indianapolis Police Department observed the appellant drive a vehicle off the lot of the Harry A. Sharp Company, an Indiana corporation. The automobile was a 1965 Ford. Officer Duckworth engaged in a high-speed chase of the vehicle, never losing sight of it, until it was abandoned after crossing a curb and sidewalk. Duckworth further testified that as the appellant jumped from the car to escape, a pair of spectacles fell from his face to the sidewalk. Appellant, at this time, disappeared and could not be found immediately. Then, while the officer was making arrangements to have the car towed away, the appellant walked by, at which time the officer asked him whether or not he had stolen the automobile. Thomas replied in the negative. The officer next asked him whether or not the spectacles were his, and Thomas replied that they were and returned them to their proper place to improve his vision. Throughout his direct examination as well as his cross-examination, the police officer consistently identified Thomas as the person who drove the car from the Harry A. Sharp parking lot.

Appellant contends that the State of Indiana failed to present sufficient evidence to prove (a) corpus delicti; (b) the ownership of the stolen vehicle; and (c) that the appellant was the driver of the car.

The indictment was for Theft pursuant to Burns' Indiana Statutes, Anno., § 10--3030, (1965 Repl.), (1967 Cum. Pocket Suppl.) We conclude that the corpus delicti of the offense was established by the testimony of Officer Duckworth who saw the car being driven from the premises of the Harry A. Sharp Company and by the testimony of Homer Archer, Vice President of the Harry A. Sharp Company. Mr. Archer said that the corporation owned the car in question and that permission had not been given to George Thomas to drive it. The corporate existence of the Harry A. Sharp Company was adequately shown by a certificate of incorporation from the Secretary of State.

After analyzing appellant's objection as to the sufficiency of the evidence, it appears that appellant attacks the credibility of witness Duckworth rather than the sufficiency of the evidence. On appeal to this Court for insufficiency of the evidence, it is not within the province of the Court, on appeal, to weigh conflicting evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses so long as the evidence in support is substantial. Wells v. State (1963), 245 Ind. 183, 197 N.E.2d 301, quoting with authority from the following: Swift v. State (1961), 242 Ind. 87, 176 N.E.2d 117; Schlegel v. State (1958), 238 Ind. 374, 150 N.E.2d 563. It is, therefore, for the court or jury to examine the credibility of the witness. If it is convinced by the testimony offered, we may not usurp its prerogative and overturn its decision on credibility alone.

In this case, Mr. Thomas waived a jury and chose to put his destiny in the hands of the Court. The Court, having all of the evidence before it, chose to believe witness Duckworth and we cannot say his testimony was insufficient, as a matter of law.

The appellant contends that the Trial Court rendered its decision at a time when the defense had not rested its case, thereby preventing its completion. Thomas insists that had it not been for this conduct of the Trial Court, appellant would...