Vorhis v. State, 29026

• Decision Date: 28 December 1953
• Docket Number: No. 29026,29026
• Citation: 116 N.E.2d 233,233 Ind. 105
• Parties: VORHIS v. STATE.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 233

116 N.E.2d 233

233 Ind. 105

VORHIS v. STATE.

No. 29026.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Dec. 28, 1953.

Howard R. Hooper, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Thomas M. Crowdus, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.

EMMERT, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment on a finding made by the trial court that appellant was guilty of robbery as charged in the first paragraph of an affidavit. He was sentenced to the Indiana State Reformatory for a term of not less than ten nor more than twenty-five years. The error assigned here is the trial court erred in overruling appellant's amended motion for a new trial, which questioned the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding, and also alleged that the trial court erred in admitting evidence that the arresting officers found twenty-nine one-half dollars upon his person at the time of the arrest.

After conviction this court does not weigh the evidence, or attempt to determine the credibility of witnesses heard by the trial court. When the evidence is viewed most favorably to the State, the trial court was justified in finding that the appellant, in company with three other men, at about 3:00 o'clock a. m., did rob Bradley C. Van Huss of the sum of $1,434.82 in lawful currency and silver of the United States of America, said money being in the possession of Van Huss and the property of Walt's Super Market, Inc. Store No. 3 of said corporation is located at 2440 Lafayette Road, Marion County, Indiana, and was in charge of Bradley C. Van Huss and his wife, Billie Van Huss. They were just getting ready to sweep up when appellant and Richard Berry entered the store. Berry threatened her with a revolver, and appellant put a revolver against the person of Bradley C. Van Huss and told him it was a holdup. He was pushed into an office, hit on the head several times with the revolver, and he and his wife were bound with a telephone wire while appellant, Richard Berry, and two other men who joined the first two after the robbery was in progress, completed looting the cash register and office of the money that was taken. There was stolen at least $100 in silver half dollars in rolls of $10 each.

The next day, on January 22nd, appellant was arrested, searched, and placed in jail, and the following day Richard Berry was arrested and placed in jail. Appellant was identified at the jail by Bradley C. Van Huss as the man who threatened him with a revolver and took the money.

Appellant asserts that the evidence as to the 29 half dollars found on the appellant at the time of arrest was irrelevant and therefore improperly admitted.

'It is a familiar rule of evidence that any fact or...