Vasco v. State, 2--1174A266
| Decision Date | 26 March 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 2--1174A266,2--1174A266 |
| Citation | 324 N.E.2d 826,163 Ind.App. 461 |
| Parties | Gary M. VASCO and Edward Grant, Jr., Appellants (Defendants below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Palmer K. Ward, Indianapolis, for appellants.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Robert F. Colker, Asst. Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Appellants Vasco and Grant challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support their convictions of robbery. We affirm.
The record reveals that State's witness Earl Bolton was at his home in Indianapolis on March 16, 1974. At approximately 3:00 A.M., appellants came to Bolton's home and inquired as to whether Grant's wife was in Bolton's apartment. Bolton responded in the negative and started to close the door. Thereupon, appellants forced their way into Bolton's apartment. After entering, Grant searched both Bolton and his clothing for money while Vasco stood in the doorway, blocking any potential attempt by Bolton to exit. Grant found and took approximately thirty (30) dollars from Bolton.
Appellants remained at the apartment for nearly twenty-five minutes, during which they notified Bolton that if he sought police assistance following their departure they would return and see to it that he wouldn't be able to call them again. Bolton testified that he was in fear of both appellants.
Inasmuch as this evidence supports the finding that appellants (1) unlawfully took, (2) from the person of another, (3) an article of value, (4) by violence or putting in fear, we hold that the convictions were supported by sufficient evidence. IC 1971, 35--13--4--6, Ind.Ann.Stat. § 10--4101 (Burns 1956); Dunn v. State (1974), Ind.App., 316 N.E.2d 834.
Appellants urge that their convictions were improper in that the information charged that the money was taken 'forcibly by violence and putting Earl Bolton in fear', and that the evidence does not support a finding that the money was taken 'by violence.' This issue was specifically dealt with and resolved contrary to appellants' arguments in Wells v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 161, 267 N.E.2d 371:
'The affidavit under which the defendant was charged stated in part that the defendant 'did then and there unlawfully, feloniously, forcibly by violence and putting Mildred Schildmeier, in fear, take from the person and possession of said Mildred Schildmeier * * *! Defendant contends that the judgment is not supported by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law since the State did not submit evidence that the said Mildred Schildmeier was in fact, a victim of any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Manson v. State
...State v. Hatch, 305 So.2d 497, 500 (La.1973); State v. Harris, 14 N.C.App. 478, 188 S.E.2d 632, 634 (1972); Vasco v. State, 163 Ind.App. 461, 324 N.E.2d 826, 827, 828 (1975); Gray v. State, 10 Md.App. 478, 271 A.2d 390, 392 (1970); State v. Adkins, 200 Neb. 775, 265 N.W.2d 454, 455 (1978); ......
-
Conard v. State
...took from the person of another an article of value by violence or putting in fear. IC 1971, 35-13-4-6 (Burns Code Ed.); Vasco v. State (1975), Ind.App., 324 N.E.2d 826. There is no evidence to indicate that the defendant was a principal in the In Indiana, however, an accessory may be charg......
-
Hackett v. State, 45A04-9506-PC-201
...to have been perpetrating at the time of the killing." Id. 234 N.E.2d at 505. Hackett then directs our attention to Vasco v. State, 163 Ind.App. 461, 324 N.E.2d 826 (1975), wherein this court identified the following elements of the robbery statute in effect at that time: 2 (1) an unlawful ......