Wallace v. State, 785S291
| Decision Date | 09 May 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 785S291,785S291 |
| Citation | 492 N.E.2d 24 |
| Parties | Allen WALLACE, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
George K. Shields, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Gary Damon Secrest, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Defendant-Appellant Allen Wallace was convicted of child molesting, a class C felony, and incest, a class D felony, and was found to be an habitual offender at the conclusion of a jury trial in the Marion County Superior Court. He was sentenced to eight (8) years for child molesting, enhanced by thirty (30) years for the habitual offender finding, and four (4) years for incest, to be served concurrently, for a total sentence of thirty-eight (38) years. On direct appeal he raises the sole issue of sufficiency of the evidence.
A.W., the victim, testified that Appellant had a routine of early morning and late night beatings of her with a belt while she was nude, followed by perpetration of various sexual acts upon her. At first, out of fear of her father's threats, A.W. told no one, but eventually told her mother.
Where the sufficiency of evidence is challenged on review this Court will neither weigh the evidence nor determine the credibility of witnesses; rather, we will look to the evidence most favorable to the State together with all reasonable inferences therefrom. If there is substantial evidence of probative value from which the trier of fact might reasonably infer guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the verdict will not be disturbed. Harris v. State (1985), Ind., 480 N.E.2d 932, 937.
Appellant claims first that the victim's testimony was inconsistent. His argument, however, goes not to her consistency, but only to the fact that her testimony contradicted that of another witness. This is merely a case where the jury was faced with two different versions of a story; the jury may believe whomever they choose. Estep v. State (1985), Ind., 486 N.E.2d 492, 494. Next, Appellant claims the victim's testimony is inconsistent because she testified he was circumcised, while Lt. John Wesseler testified he was not. This can easily be explained, as Appellant himself concedes, by the conclusion that the victim did not really understand what "circumcised" meant.
Finally, Appellant claims that since he was acquitted of one count of child molesting arising from these same facts, there could not possibly be sufficient facts to support the present convictions for incest and child molesting. It has long been held that this Court will not speculate as to the wisdom, motive, or reasoning of the jury in reaching its verdict. Crabtree v. State (1968), 250...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parks v. State
...does not mean they could not find sufficient facts to convict on another charge based on different underlying conduct." Wallace v. State (1986) Ind., 492 N.E.2d 24, 25 (holding that verdicts of guilty for child molesting based upon sexual intercourse and a verdict of not guilty of sexual de......
-
Butler v. State
...316. When the testimony contains two different versions of a story, the jurors may believe whichever version they choose. Wallace v. State (1986), Ind., 492 N.E.2d 24. In the present case, the trial court gave the jury the instructions for both murder and voluntary manslaughter. The jury wa......
-
Harrison v. State
...set of facts, the jury "clearly" did not believe the witnesses, and therefore should have acquitted him of theft also. In Wallace v. State (1986), Ind., 492 N.E.2d 24, we "It has long been held that this Court will not speculate as to the wisdom, motive, or reasoning of the jury in reaching......
-
Stallings v. State
...other witnesses. They do not render K.A.'s testimony inherently unbelievable. The jury may believe whomever they choose. Wallace v. State (1986), Ind., 492 N.E.2d 24, 25. K.A. reported being raped on January 12, 1984. She was shown several photographs by the police and picked out a photogra......