Underhill v. State, 30792
| Decision Date | 11 May 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 30792,30792 |
| Citation | 247 Ind. 388,216 N.E.2d 344 |
| Parties | Rodger Dean UNDERHILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Richard H. Sproull, F. L. Wiltrout, Elkhart, for appellant.
John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen., Kenneth M. Waterman, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The defendant was charged and convicted of burglary in the second degree of a building and structure owned by Hanley Air Activities, Inc. His appeal is based on the contention that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence.
The evidence shows that on the night of December 17, 1963 some persons broke into and entered two different airports near Elkhart, Indiana and carried away certain radio and navigational equipment for airplanes. One of these was the building of Hanley Air Activities, Inc. located at the Elkhart Municipal Airport. The other was a building owned by Aero-Marine Development Corporation located on a road between Elkhart and Goshen, Indiana, a number of miles apart.
On the night of the burglary the appellant, a resident of the State of Michigan, in his Cadillac automobile with a Michigan license, was discovered by the deputy sheriff within a thousand feet of the Aero-Marine building. The sheriff was called to the scene because the appellant's automobile, while parked near the edge of the road, was hit by another automobile. The sheriff had seen the Cadillac of the appellant parked there about 45 minutes previously, unoccupied. The appellant told the deputy sheriff that he had run out of gasoline and had just returned at the time of the accident.
There is no evidence whatever to show that the appellant on the night in question was at or near the Hanley Air Activities, Inc. building at the Elkhart airport. The only connection between the two burglaries is that they occurred the same night.
The evidence further shows that on or about March 7, 1964 the appellant sold to a Valparaiso, Indiana dealer certain radio and navigation equipment which included some of that which was taken from the Hanley Air Activities, Inc. building on the night of the burglary on December 17, 1963. The appellant dealt in the type of merchandise in question, but the evidence is indefinite as to whether or not he did anything more than sell the equipment in question. There is no certain evidence that the appellant had actual physical possession of the stolen property or whether he acted as a broker or agent in selling the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v. State
...for a burglary conviction. It may be that twenty-four hours is not the outer limitation for each and every case. See Underhill v. State (1966) 247 Ind. 388, 216 N.E.2d 344 in which the court observed: "Normally, an elapse of a few hours, or a day or two or even a week under some circumstanc......
-
Muse v. State, 680S180
...that defendant has had the exclusive possession of the property during that period of time. Ward v. State, supra; Underhill v. State, (1966) 247 Ind. 388, 216 N.E.2d 344. In the instant case, the evidence supports the inference that defendant had possession of the van shortly after the thef......
-
Vaughn v. State
...841; Finch v. State (1967), 249 Ind. 122, 231 N.E.2d 45; Spiker v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 595, 219 N.E.2d 904; Underhill v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 388, 216 N.E.2d 344; Cotton v. State (1965), 247 Ind. 56, 211 N.E.2d 158, 212 N.E.2d 159; Johnson v. State (1964), 245 Ind. 295, 198 N.E.2d 373 ......
-
Campbell v. State, 968S138
...evidence from which the court could reasonably infer that appellant was the one who perpetrated the crime. Underhill v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 388, 8 Ind.Dec. 262, 216 N.E.2d 344; Bradley v. State (1964), 244 Ind. 630, 2 Ind.Dec. 535, 195 N.E.2d 347. This evidence is strengthened by the ide......