Willoughby v. State, 968S141
| Decision Date | 07 March 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 968S141,968S141 |
| Citation | 245 N.E.2d 167,252 Ind. 13,16 Ind.Dec. 637 |
| Parties | Jesse WILLOUGHBY, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Palmer K. Ward, Indianapolis, for appellant.
John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen., Robert F. Hassett, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The defendant was charged by affidavit with the theft of six pairs of draperies with an alleged value of approximately four hundred dollars from Aero Cleaning Services, Inc. The court without a jury found the defendant guilty and sentenced him accordingly.
The sole contention made on appeal is that the evidence is insufficient to support the decision and judgment of the trial court. The defendant asks for a reversal because 'the State of Indiana failed completely and absolutely to prove ownership.'
The evidence is as follows: While a dry cleaning installer who works for Aero Cleaning Services, Inc. was loading draperies in his truck to be delivered and installed in the home of the owners, he was approached by the appellant Willoughby and asked where the employment office was. The installer told him and then returned inside the plant. While inside the plant and standing by a window, the installer saw appellant Willoughby drive up to the truck and throw some draperies in his car and drive away. Another Aero employee followed Willoughby until Willoughby stopped and got out of the car. At this time the employee drove by, stopped, and telephoned the police and gave them a description of the defendant's car and the license number. The defendant was apprehended approximately fifteen minutes later.
The affidavit under which the appellant was charged alleges that the appellant 'obtained and exerted unauthorized control over property of Aero Cleaning Services, Inc., to-wit: six pairs of draperies with a value of four hundred dollars. * * *'
Burns' § 9--1121 states in part that in the trial of offenses of the character involved in property such as this, it shall be sufficient under an allegation of ownership of the property in one person to prove that such person was in possession as a bailee or tenant.
The appellant relies upon Rhoades v. State (1946), 224 Ind. 569, 70 N.E.2d 27. The Rhoades case, supra, can be differentiated from the present one in that the alleged owner in Rhoades never had possession of the property nor did any employee of the alleged owner testify in the case. Here the dry cleaning installer testified that his duties were, 'To pick up draperies for dry cleaning and to return them and hang them.' To do this he used a truck with Aero Cleaning Services, Inc. written on the side. The witness further testified that the draperies were immediately prior to the theft in the possession of Aero Cleaning Service, Inc. When questioned as to what he was doing with the draperies the witness replied, 'I had put them--routed the run, the way I was going, and had placed them on a rack in the plant in the order which they would go in the truck and had taken them off the rack and put them in my truck.' After describing the draperies the witness also told who the real owners were and what the order numbers were on the draperies. The above testimony, coupled with the nature of the business involved, dry cleaning, gave the court ample evidence to support a bailee relationship. As stated in the Rhoades case, supra, p. 573, 70 N.Ed.2d p. 28,
In Sneed, Lockridge v. State (1955), 235 Ind. 198, 130 N.E.2d 32, this Court held that it was not a fatal variance that the affidavit alleged that the property was the personal goods of the motor carrier, whereas the proof...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dixon v. State
...doubt that the defendant committed the crime of theft. Bryant v. State, (1969) 252 Ind. 17, 245 N.E.2d 156; Willoughby v. State, (1969) 252 Ind. 13, 245 N.E.2d 167. XI Finally, defendant claims he had inadequate and incompetent representation of counsel. He claims trial counsel failed to co......
-
Bennett v. State
...petit and grand larceny are no longer separate crimes, a distinction is made in the punishment upon conviction. Willoughby v. State (1969) 252 Ind. 13, 245 N.E.2d 167, 169. But cf. Patton v. State (1972) 257 Ind. 421, 275 N.E.2d 794 (implying that theft under $100 is a lesser and included o......
-
Mahfouz v. State
...People v. Kaye, 112 Ill.App.2d 141, 251 N.E.2d 306 (1969); Owens v. State, 255 Ind. 693, 266 N.E.2d 612 (1971); Willoughby v. State, 252 Ind. 13, 245 N.E.2d 167 (1969); Lee v. State, 238 Md. 224, 208 A.2d 375 (1965); Petrey v. State, 239 Md. 601, 212 A.2d 277 (1965); Richardson v. State, 22......
-
Lane v. State, 3-477A109
...Ed.). Additionally, the State must prove that the property taken had a value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more. Willoughby v. State (1969), 252 Ind. 13, 245 N.E.2d 167. The facts of record and the reasonable inferences therefrom most favorable to the appellee State establish that on the......