Williams v. State
| Citation | 520 N.E.2d 1261 |
| Decision Date | 06 April 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 45S00-8611-CR-991,45S00-8611-CR-991 |
| Parties | Adam WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Nathaniel Ruff, Appellate Div., Lake Superior Court, Crown Point, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Amy Schaeffer Good, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
This is a belated appeal from a 1985 conviction. A jury trial resulted in a conviction of Robbery, a Class A felony, for which appellant received a sentence of twenty (20) years.
The facts are: Jeff Welch had been visiting his girl friend in Chicago where he had enjoyed a few beers. On his return to Indiana, he became lost and in his confusion struck a center island in the highway ruining two of his tires. Mark Sannita and Anthony Steele saw the accident and offered to help Welch. Sannita described Welch as "a lot drunk." When it was discovered the car could not be moved until two tires were replaced, Sannita offered to sell Welch two spare tires; Sannita's tires, however, would not fit Welch's car.
The three men then went to an address in Hammond, at the direction of Steele, where they attempted to find the necessary tires. At this location, they dropped off Sannita and picked up appellant who directed them to a location where they supposedly would find tires. As they pulled up to a garage in an alley and Welch exited the car, he was struck in the back of the head and the face by appellant. The object appellant used to strike Welch was never identified. However, it left lacerations on Welch's head and face that required several sutures to close. The blow knocked Welch to the ground. While he was on the ground Steele kicked him. The men took his money and jacket.
Appellant contends there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict. He first claims that Welch's testimony was inherently unreliable in that he was so drunk on the night in question that he was unable to recall and relate the events which allegedly occurred. He bases this on the admission of Welch that he had been drinking and upon Sannita's observation that Welch was "a lot drunk" and further that Welch did not give an accurate description of the accident which was viewed by Sannita and Steele. All of this evidence was placed before the jury and it was for them to make the factual determination as to whether Welch should be believed. This Court will not usurp the prerogative of the jury. Alfaro v. State (1985), Ind., 478 N.E.2d 670.
Appell...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hand v. State
...appellate courts have sometimes been willing to sanction convictions resting on rather slim levels of injury. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 520 N.E.2d 1261 (Ind.1988) (injury held "serious" when victim was struck in face and back of head, causing lacerations requiring several sutures to clo......
-
Coleman v. State
...the situation, was a matter of fact for the determination of the jury. This Court will not usurp their prerogative. Williams v. State (1988), Ind., 520 N.E.2d 1261. When one considers the testimony of the victim and of Mary Scott, there is ample evidence in this record to support the Appell......
-
Thompson v. State
...and it was the jury's prerogative to determine the credibility of his testimony and the weight it should be accorded. Williams v. State (1988), Ind., 520 N.E.2d 1261, 1262. We will not disturb the jury's Thompson next contends that the State did not produce any physical evidence linking him......
- Johnson v. State