Turner v. State, 671S168

Citation259 Ind. 344,287 N.E.2d 339
Decision Date26 September 1972
Docket NumberNo. 671S168,671S168
PartiesMarion TURNER, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

Frederick B. Robinson, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Frederick R. Spencer, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PRENTICE, Justice.

Defendant (Appellant) was convicted in a trial by jury of the offense of Robbery by Putting in Fear (Acts of 1941, ch. 148, § 6, 1956 Repl.Burns Ind.Stat.Ann. § 10--4101, IC 1971, 35--13--4--6). He was sentenced to imprisonment for not less than ten (10) nor more than twenty-five (25) years and disfranchised for ten (10) years. This appeal cites three alleged errors:

(1) Insufficiency of the evidence.

(2) Prejudicial misconduct of the prosecutor in his closing argument.

(3) Admission of certain evidence over the objection of the defendant.

The evidence, when viewed most favorably to the State, discloses that during the early morning hours of the day of the crime, the prosecuting witness was driving his automobile alone in the City of Indianapolis. He was stopped at a traffic sign when the defendant approached his vehicle with a gun in view and ordered him to unlock the door on the opposite side, which he did. The co-defendant of defendant got into the back seat and defendant into the front seat. Keeping the gun in view, the defendant ordered the witness to drive on. They drove about the city for some time, with the defendant directing the witness where to turn. There had been a heavy snow, and the road conditions were bad. Ultimately, the vehicle became stalled, and at this time, defendant ordered the witness to give him everything he had of value, whereupon the witness gave him his money, his watch, and his ring. The defendant and his co-defendant got out of the vehicle and ran, the witness waited momentarily, then alighted from the automobile, pursued them and saw them enter an apartment building. He returned to the automobile, and after the lapse of considerable time, managed to again mobilize the automobile and immediately drove to the police department and reported the robbery. The police accompanied the witness to the apartment building and awoke the landlord, who advised that two men answering the description given by the witness were staying in a basement apartment. The police knocked upon the door of such apartment and announced themselves. The defendant opened the door, and the police and the witness entered. The witness identified the occupants as the men who had robbed him, and a search of a furnace room adjoining the apartment revealed the witness' ring. The witness further identified the defendant at the trial and testified that he was in fear throughout the encounter with him.

(1) From the foregoing, the jury was warranted in finding the defendant guilty of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt. We see no lack of evidence upon any material element of the crime. As we have said countless times, this Court, on appeal, will not weigh the evidence nor determine the credibility of witnesses; and when the sufficiency of the evidence is raised as an issue upon appeal, we will consider only that evidence most favorable to the State, together with all logical and reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom. The conviction will be affirmed if, from that viewpoint, there is substantial evidence of probative value from which the trier of the facts could reasonably infer that the appellant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Cravens v. State (1971), Ind., 275 N.E.2d 4; Potter v. State (1971), Ind., 274 N.E.2d 699; Fuller v. State (1971), Ind., 271 N.E.2d 720.

It is the defendant's argument upon this issue that we must disregard the testimony of the prosecuting witness because of the conflict between it and the testimony of the police officer, as to the time that he reported the robbery. The prosecuting witness testified that he left his friend's apartment at approximately 2:15 a.m. and reported the robbery at approximately 4:00 a.m., whereas the police testimony was that the witness reported the crime at 2:20 a.m., which would leave but five minutes between the time he left his friend's apartment and the time the crime was reported, an interval obviously insufficient for all that he had reported to have transpired. It is the defendant's contention that since it would have been impossible for the facts, as testified to by the prosecuting witness, to have occurred within this five minute interval, the verdict is not sustained by the evidence. He has quoted at length from Baker v. State (1956), 236 Ind. 55, 138 N.E.2d 641, Vuncannon v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 206, 258 N.E.2d 639 and Gaddis v. State (1969), 253 Ind. 73, 251 N.E.2d 658, reminding us that evidence must be substantial and of probative value to support a criminal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
63 cases
  • Joy v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • March 8, 1984
    ...(1976) 264 Ind. 288, 297, 342 N.E.2d 859, 864; Evans v. State, (1973) 261 Ind. 148, 156, 300 N.E.2d 882, 886; Turner v. State, (1972) 259 Ind. 344, 347-48, 287 N.E.2d 339, 341. By refusing to read the stricken portion of the instruction, the trial court was merely editing it to conform to t......
  • Ballard v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • April 18, 1974
    ...by its admission. Thus, there could be no finding of reversible error, regardless of the relevancy of the exhibit. Turner v. State, (1972) Ind., 287 N.E.2d 339. ISSUE Did the trial court abuse its discretion by refusing to sustain Ballard's Motions for Mistrial based upon (1) the State's di......
  • Ballard v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • November 12, 1974
    ...by its admission. Thus, there could be no finding of reversible error, regardless of the relevancy of the exhibit. Turner v. State, (1972) Ind., 287 N.E.2d 339. 'ISSUE 'Did the trial court abuse its discretion by refusing to sustain Ballard's Motions for Mistrial based upon (1) the State's ......
  • Works v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • April 28, 1977
    ...accord with ancient tradition. Busch Law and Tactics in Jury Trials, Encyclopedic Edition, Volume Three, p. 502. 351; Turner v. State, (1972) 259 Ind. 344, 287 N.E.2d 339; Hitch v. State, (1972) 259 Ind. 1, 284 N.E.2d 783. Here the defendant failed to carry that burden. Specifically, he mad......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT