Windle v. State, No. 2--973A208

Docket NºNo. 2--973A208
Citation316 N.E.2d 388, 161 Ind.App. 322
Case DateAugust 29, 1974
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

Page 388

316 N.E.2d 388
161 Ind.App. 322
Harold L. WINDLE, Jr., Appellant (Defendant Below),
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).
No. 2--973A208.
Court of Appeals of Indiana, Second District.
Aug. 29, 1974.

[161 Ind.App. 323] Richard L. Milan, Craven & Milan, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Robert F. Colker, Asst. Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.



Defendant-Appellant Harold L. Windle, Jr. (Windle) appeals from a trial court conviction of First Degree Burglary, claiming insufficient evidence.

We affirm.


The facts and evidence most favorable to the trial court's judgment are:

About 3:00 A.M. on October 15, 1972, Mrs. Pauline Keen was aroused by barking dogs. Looking out the window, she observed a young man trying to break into her neighbor's house at 338 North Walcott, Indianapolis, Indiana, and promptly called the police.

Officer Charles Gorgol (Gorgol) responded to the call, arriving within a few minutes at the neighbor's house, belonging to a Mr. and Mrs. Herman Moore.

As Gorgol approached the house in his squad car, he turned off his lights and trained a spotlight on the front door of the Moore residence. As he did so he observed Windle coming out of the front door with both arms clutching items which were not immediately identifiable by the officer.

Caught in the spotlight, Windle immediately dropped the articles he was carrying on the floor by the front door and ran into the house. Gorgol exited his patrol car, entered the house, and turned on the living room lights just as Windle emerged from the kitchen. He placed Windle under arrest.

The back door of the residence opened from the kitchen into the back yard where the Moores kept two German Shepherd dogs.

[161 Ind.App. 324] Gorgol testified that there were two bows and an arrow, a quiver, and a shotgun strewn across the living room floor by the front door. He further noted that one of the windows in the living room had been broken and putty around the window had been removed.

Officer Earl Hankins (Hankins), who arrived after Windle had been apprehended, removed a knife from the suspect. Hankins testified that the knife had putty on it.

The State also called as witnesses two residents of the burgled home, Wanda Moore and her brother, William Hampton. Both testified that they were away from

Page 389

the house when the burglary was committed. Upon their return later on October 15, 1972, they found a total of four of the windows of the home broken. They further testified that the bows belonging to them were missing, together with a shotgun which belonged to Mrs. Moore's husband. All the doors had been locked and neither had given permission to Windle to enter the residence.

Evidence by Windle was to the effect that he had been on his way to visit a friend who lived in the second story of the Moore home, entry being possible only by an outside stairway. Upon arriving at the house, Windle noticed that the front door was open and several windows broken. Windle claimed that he was 'investigating' when Officer Gorgol caught him in the spotlight at the front door. He denied having possession of the items at that time.

Mrs. Keen testified she...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Wright v. State, No. 2--673A136
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • August 29, 1974
    ...Tait v. State (1963), 244 Ind. 35, 188 N.E.2d 537; Bradley v. State (1964), 244 Ind. 630, 195 N.E.2d 347; Raymer v. State (1964), 244 [161 Ind.App. 322] Ind. 644, 195 N.E.2d 350; Luther v. State (1912), 177 Ind. 619, 98 N.E. There is obviously more than mere presence of Wright in the area .......
  • Gooch v. State, No. 2--1274A305
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • July 28, 1975
    ...elements may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Giles v. State (1974), Ind.App., 320 N.E.2d 806; Windle v. State (1974), Ind.App., 316 N.E.2d 388. From the circumstantial evidence presented to the trial court in this particular case, it is reasonable to infer that Gooch had forcibly ente......
  • Morris v. State, No. 2--375A73
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 5, 1975
    ...the reasonable inferences capable of being drawn therefrom, was sufficient to support the conviction. Windle v. State (1974), Ind.App., 316 N.E.2d 388; Atkins v. State (1974), Ind.App., 307 N.E.2d 73; Parsons v. State (1973), Ind.App., 304 N.E.2d 802; Sargent v. State (1973), Ind.App., 297 ......

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