Walton v. State, No. 180S9

Docket NºNo. 180S9
Citation398 N.E.2d 667, 272 Ind. 398
Case DateJanuary 11, 1980
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 667

398 N.E.2d 667
272 Ind. 398
Kenneth WALTON, Appellant (Defendant Below),
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).
No. 180S9.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Jan. 11, 1980.

Page 668

Kenneth T. Roberts, Wilson, Coleman & Roberts, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Theo. L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Robert J. Black, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

[272 Ind. 399]

Page 669

ON PETITION FOR TRANSFER

PRENTICE, Justice.

This case is before us upon the petition of the State of Indiana (Plaintiff-Appellee) to transfer the cause from the Court of Appeals, Fourth District, that Court having, by an unpublished opinion filed August 14, 1979, reversed the judgment of the trial court entered upon the jury verdict of guilty, as to the charge of armed felony, Ind.Code 35-12-1-1. Said opinion erroneously decided a new question of law, i. e. whether or not the aforementioned statute encompasses the possession of narcotic drugs, as the requisite underlying felony. Accordingly, that decision and the opinion are hereby vacated, and the State's petition to transfer is hereby granted.

Defendant was convicted upon three counts, to-wit:

(1) Possession of heroin, Ind.Code 1971 35-24.1-4.1-6 (since repealed).

(2) Assault with intent to kill, Ind.Code 35-13-2-1, and

(3) Commission of a felony, to-wit: possession of (heroin), a controlled substance, while armed, Ind.Code 35-12-1-1.

His appeal to the Court of Appeals assigned two issues:

(1) Was the verdict upon the assault with intent to kill count sustained by the evidence?

(2) Did the trial court err in overruling the defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence obtained in a search under a warrant challenged by the defendant as defective?

(3) A third issue, with respect to which transfer is granted, arose by the sua sponte action of the Court of Appeals, holding that the possession of heroin, which was a felony under Ind.Code 35-24.1-4.1-6 (now Ind.Code 35-48-4-6), could not serve as the underlying felony with respect to the crime of commission of a felony while armed, Ind.Code 35-12-1-1.

ISSUE I

The evidence, when viewed most favorably for the State, disclosed that on December 16, 1976, five police officers went to the defendant's apartment to execute a search warrant. They knocked upon the door and identified themselves as police officers. In response to an inquiry [272 Ind. 400] from within, they again identified themselves as police officers. Whereupon, they heard sounds of scuffling and running inside the apartment, and they kicked open the door. Two of the officers pursued the defendant and a woman occupant down a hallway and shouted for them to stop. They ran into the bedroom and slammed the door. One of the officers again identified himself as a police officer and began to force the door open. As he got the door partially open, the defendant fired a single shot from a gun through the doorway, narrowly missing the officer.

After some minutes, the defendant was persuaded to surrender by another officer present and with whom he was personally acquainted. A search of the premises produced the contraband heroin.

The defendant does not question the evidence with respect either to the firing of the shot or the possession of the heroin. Rather, he challenges the verdict as unsupported by evidence of the requisite felonious intent.

In justification of his firing the shot, the defendant testified that approximately one month earlier he had been robbed in his apartment and that he thought that he was being robbed again. Thus, it is his claim that he fired the shot, acting under a mistake of fact.

The defendant's contention that, inasmuch as his explanation for his actions was consistent with the State's evidence and was not contradicted, it was conclusive upon the issue of intent, is not supported in the law. When the guilt of the defendant can be found, beyond a reasonable doubt, from the evidence presented and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, a prima facie case has been made, and the trier of fact is not required to accept the

Page 670

defendant's evidence as true. Collins v. State, (1977) 267 Ind. 233, 369 N.E.2d 422; Sanders v. State, (1972) 258 Ind. 11, 279 N.E.2d 194.

The jury rejected the defendant's explanation, and we are not at liberty to disturb their finding, which was adequately supported by credible probative evidence.

Upon a sufficiency review,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 practice notes
  • Durham ex rel. Estate of Wade v. U-Haul International, No. 49S02-0005-CV-294.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • April 10, 2001
    ...examining a statute it is not our prerogative to engraft upon it a meaning the court determines to be wise or desirable. Walton v. State, 272 Ind. 398, 402, 398 N.E.2d 667, 670 (1980). Rather, we must attempt to determine what the legislative body intended when the statute was enacted. To f......
  • Coghill v. Badger, No. 2-379A51
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • April 13, 1981
    ...397 N.E.2d 315. We are bound "to prevent absurdity and hardship and to favor the public convenience." Walton v. State (1980), Ind., 398 N.E.2d 667, 671 (quoting Loza v. State (1975), 263 Ind. 124, 325 N.E.2d 173). Otherwise stated, we may Page 1211 consider potential adverse consequences of......
  • Jones v. State, No. 3-1180A336
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • August 19, 1982
    ...must be presumed that our legislature did not intend its enactment to work an illogical or absurd result. Walton v. State, (1980) Ind., 398 N.E.2d 667; Chaffin v. Nicosia, (1974) 261 Ind. 698, 310 N.E.2d 867; In re Adoption of Jackson, (1972) 257 Ind. 588, 277 N.E.2d 162; Town of Homecroft ......
  • Rowan v. State, No. 380S76
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 5, 1982
    ...of probative value to support the conclusion of the trier of fact, the verdict will not be overturned. Walton v. State, (1980) Ind., 398 N.E.2d 667; Wofford v. State, (1979) Ind., 394 N.E.2d 100; Poindexter v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 167, 374 N.E.2d 509. The triers of fact may draw reasonabl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
38 cases
  • Durham ex rel. Estate of Wade v. U-Haul International, No. 49S02-0005-CV-294.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • April 10, 2001
    ...examining a statute it is not our prerogative to engraft upon it a meaning the court determines to be wise or desirable. Walton v. State, 272 Ind. 398, 402, 398 N.E.2d 667, 670 (1980). Rather, we must attempt to determine what the legislative body intended when the statute was enacted. To f......
  • Coghill v. Badger, No. 2-379A51
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • April 13, 1981
    ...397 N.E.2d 315. We are bound "to prevent absurdity and hardship and to favor the public convenience." Walton v. State (1980), Ind., 398 N.E.2d 667, 671 (quoting Loza v. State (1975), 263 Ind. 124, 325 N.E.2d 173). Otherwise stated, we may Page 1211 consider potential adverse consequences of......
  • Jones v. State, No. 3-1180A336
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • August 19, 1982
    ...must be presumed that our legislature did not intend its enactment to work an illogical or absurd result. Walton v. State, (1980) Ind., 398 N.E.2d 667; Chaffin v. Nicosia, (1974) 261 Ind. 698, 310 N.E.2d 867; In re Adoption of Jackson, (1972) 257 Ind. 588, 277 N.E.2d 162; Town of Homecroft ......
  • Rowan v. State, No. 380S76
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 5, 1982
    ...of probative value to support the conclusion of the trier of fact, the verdict will not be overturned. Walton v. State, (1980) Ind., 398 N.E.2d 667; Wofford v. State, (1979) Ind., 394 N.E.2d 100; Poindexter v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 167, 374 N.E.2d 509. The triers of fact may draw reasonabl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT