Vuncannon v. State
| Decision Date | 03 June 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 170,170 |
| Parties | Donald Eugene VUNCANNON, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. S 9. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Charles E. Johnson and Marshall E. Williams, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., William F. Thompson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant was indicted for the crime of assault and battery with intent to gratify sexual desires. He pleaded not guilty, waived trial by jury and upon trial was found guilty of the lesser included offense of assault and battery.
There is only one issue we need to consider, namely, whether the evidence is sufficient to establish the finding of guilty of assault and battery. The evidence reveals that the prosecuting witness was sixteen (16) years of age. His companion was a boy fifteen (15) years of age. On May 30, 1969 the prosecuting witness and his companion were selling newspapers which they had removed from a vending machine without paying for them. They were offered a ride by the appellant. After purchasing sandwiches at a nearby restaurant, the appellant took the two boys to his home. In the appellant's home the appellant showed the boys some 'dirty movies'. During the events in the home the appellant repeatedly asked the prosecuting witness 'how big his privates were' and held out his hand. This much of the testimony of the prosecuting witness was corroborated by his companion. Then the prosecuting witness testified as follows:
'Q. Alright, then what happened, after he said that?
'A. Then we went in there and I don't know if he backed in to me or he grabbed me. I wasn't looking at the time, but then I went away from him and I said, 'Well, we got to go.' So he took us home.
This is the only evidence in the record tending to show that the appellant touched the prosecuting witness in a rude, insolent or angry manner, as required by Burns' Ind.Stat.Anno. § 10--403. It is to be noted that the testimony of the prosecuting witness was not definite but in the alternative. He testified that he did not 'know if he (the appellant) backed into me or grabbed me'. It is further to be noted that the next question was leading, with the assumption included therein that the boy was grabbed. On cross-examination the evidence is made no more definite. The only pertinent part of such cross-examination is as follows:
'Q. These alleged incidents in the defendant's home, did he ever attempt to use force on you?
'A. What do you mean by 'force'?
We add further that the only other material witness, the companion of the prosecuting witness, testified that he did not see the appellant touch the prosecuting witness.
It appears to us that this evidence lacks directness and freedom from uncertainty, qualities which substantive evidence of a probative value must have. A mere scientilla of evidence is not enough. Proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt.
'To exclude a reasonable doubt the evidence 'must induce such faith in the truth of the facts which the evidence tends to establish that a prudent man might, without distrust, voluntarily act upon their assumed existence, in matters of highest import to himself' and involving his dearest interests, under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fox v. State
...reasonable doubt". Bryant v. State (1978), Ind., 376 N.E.2d 1123, 1126; Wims v. State (1977), Ind., 370 N.E.2d 358; Vuncannon v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 206, 258 N.E.2d 639; Gaddis v. State (1969), 253 Ind. 73, 251 N.E.2d 658; Penn v. State (1957), 237 Ind. 374, 146 N.E.2d 240. If the eviden......
-
Sizemore v. State
...she did not know whether penetration was caused by the male sex organ or by the use of fingers or hands. In Vuncannon v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 206, 258 N.E.2d 639, our Supreme Court reversed for a new trial because of the equivocal nature of the State's chief It appears to us that this (te......
-
Sizemore v. State
...323 N.E.2d 216; Lynch v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 360, 316 N.E.2d 372. The Court of Appeals quotes extensively from Vuncannon v. State, (1970) 254 Ind. 206, 258 N.E.2d 639 for the requirement of more than a mere scintilla of evidence to prove guilt and that evidence must support a conclusion ......
-
Mediate v. State
...evidence of probative value is evidence that has the qualities of directness and freedom from uncertainty. Vuncannon v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 206, 258 N.E.2d 639. The rule of law defining proof beyond a reasonable doubt is well It requires the trier of facts to be so convinced by the evide......