Wims v. State, 377S237
| Decision Date | 16 December 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 377S237,377S237 |
| Citation | 370 N.E.2d 358,267 Ind. 392 |
| Parties | Keith WIMS, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
John F. Surbeck, Jr., Fort Wayne, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Terry G. Duga, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Defendant (Appellant) was charged by information with the commission of a felony (robbery) while armed, Ind.Code § 35-12-1-1 (Burns 1975). After trial by jury he was found guilty as charged, and was sentenced to thirty years of imprisonment. The sole issue presented on appeal is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict.
This Court will not weigh the evidence or pass on the credibility of the witnesses, Rosell v. State, (1976) Ind., 352 N.E.2d 750.
Baum v. State, (1976) Ind., 345 N.E.2d 831.
Although a conviction may be sustained upon the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness, Frith; Williams v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 100, 325 N.E.2d 186; Jones v. State, (1970) 253 Ind. 480, 255 N.E.2d 219, such testimony must support a conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, Gaddis v. State, (1969) 253 Ind. 73, 251 N.E.2d 658.
The evidence most favorable to the State indicates that on the evening of October 8, 1975, a lone man entered a Fort Wayne tavern, approached the bar and ordered a drink. When he was asked for a piece of identification, he pulled a gun and stated, "This is all the I.D. I need." The gunman then took approximately three hundred dollars from the tavern proprietor, and relieved several patrons of their wallets.
Four eyewitnesses identified the defendant at trial as the robber. Three of the eyewitnesses were somewhat uncertain in their identification of Defendant. In Gaddis v. State, supra, this Court reversed a conviction for insufficient evidence when equivocal eyewitness testimony was the only evidence of guilt. Here, however, eyewitness Marchita Gully testified that she was present during the robbery, had a good opportunity to observe the robber, and she realized at the time of the robbery that she recognized the robber from having seen him on a prior occasion. Gully testified that shortly after the robbery she picked Defendant's photograph out of several hundred shown to her by the police, and indicated that she had no reservations concerning her in-court identification of Defendant.
Defendant argues that Gully's testimony is inherently...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fox v. State
...the existence of each material element beyond a 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 (19......
-
Sizemore v. State
...that equivocal and weak testimony may not attain the necessary quality of substantive evidence of probative value. See Wims v. State (1977), Ind., 370 N.E.2d 358; Bryant v. State (1978), Ind., 376 N.E.2d Moreover, when more than one defendant is tried for the same offense, the State must br......
-
Sizemore v. State
...penetration by a penis as to both men. The Court of Appeals concluded that the prosecutrix' testimony was equivocal, citing Wims v. State, (1977) Ind., 370 N.E.2d 358, and Bryant v. State, (1978) Ind., 376 N.E.2d 1123, for the proposition that equivocal or weak testimony may not attain the ......
-
Crabtree v. State
...and weak testimony may not attain the necessary quality of substantive evidence of probative value. See, e.g., Wims v. State (1977), 267 Ind. 392, 370 N.E.2d 358; Bryant v. State (1978), 268 Ind. 498, 376 N.E.2d 1123. That problem does not exist in this case. The victim made a distinction b......