Wright v. State, No. 2--673A136
| Docket Nº | No. 2--673A136 |
| Citation | 161 Ind.App. 317, 316 N.E.2d 385 |
| Case Date | August 29, 1974 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Page 385
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).
[161 Ind.App. 318] Harriette Bailey Conn, Public Defender of Indiana, David P. Freund, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Robert F. Colker, Asst. Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
BUCHANAN, Judge.
Defendant-Appellant Albert Lee Wright (Wright) appeals from a conviction of First Degree Burglary claiming insufficient evidence.
We affirm.
The facts and evidence most favorable to the trial court's judgment are:
On May 7, 1970, a Willie Montgomery was working near 2529 Fernway Street,
Page 386
Indianapolis, when he observed three 'kids' coming out of the house located at that address, carrying a green bag and a set of drums. Upon investigating he found the door had been broken in, and proceeded to call the Indianapolis Police Department.While waiting for the police, he saw them again enter the house--two boys and two girls--carrying a guitar case.
The police then arrived and gave chase to the kids across an open field behind the house.
[161 Ind.App. 319] Officers Hoover and Marsee testified they arrived on the scene about noon and observed three (3) youths fleeing across the field toward Tacoma and Keystone Streets. While giving chase for several blocks they observed one of the youths, a teenage girl, enter a house located at 2063 Keystone Avenue. After losing sight of the teenage boy they were chasing, they returned to the Keystone residence to which the teenage girl had fled.
They both also testified that while chasing the fleeing suspects they were able to get a good look at them and that Wright was one of the suspects they chased.
Upon returning to the Keystone residence, they then found Wright and the other youth (whom they had lost in the chase) standing on the porch. The two young men were immediately arrested.
Given permission to enter the house by Wright, who resided at the house, the police officers found the drum and green sleeping bag that Willie Montgomery had seen being carried from the house. At that time, Wright's thirteen-year old sister, Bernice, who was inside the house was also placed under arrest.
Later the guitar case and a sewing machine were found in the field across which the three (3) suspects had been chased by the police.
Jackie Bernard, a resident of the burglarized house, identified as his property the items discovered in the Wright residence as well as the articles found in the field. He further testified that the stolen articles had been in his house when he had left earlier in the day, that the door had been locked when he left, that he had not authorized Wright to enter his home, and that the door had been 'kicked in'.
Wright presented evidence to the effect that it was his sister and three other youths who had broken into Bernard's house and denied any involvement, claiming that he had just arrived home when the police officers arrested him.
[161 Ind.App. 320] The trial court found Wright guilty of First Degree Burglary and sentenced him to imprisonment for not less than ten nor more than twenty years.
This Court granted Wright's Petition for Permission to File a Belated Appeal pursuant to P.C. 2(B) on March 22, 1973, and this appeal follows:
Was the evidence sufficient to support a conviction of First Degree Burglary?
Wright contends that the State presented circumstantial evidence which only proved he was in the area.
The State argues that the positive identification of Wright, together with the evidence of his flight from the scene of the crime and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maynard v. State, No. 55A01-8604-CR-101
...Ind.App., 415 N.E.2d 152, 156. In addition, a conviction may be based entirely upon the testimony of an accomplice. Id.; Wolfe, 161 Ind.App. at 317, 315 N.E.2d at 374. Therefore, the trial court did not err in admitting the direct testimony of Issue Four Maynard argues the trial court erred......
-
Ingle v. State, No. 2-876A309
...rule" and is not applicable when the testimony offered (as here) is the direct testimony of the co-conspirator. Wolfe v. State (1974), 161 Ind.App. 317, 315 N.E.2d 371. See also Smith v. State (1961), 241 Ind. 601, 174 N.E.2d 47; Smith v. State (1974), 159 Ind.App. 438, 307 N.E.2d PARTIES' ......
-
Grigsby v. State, No. 776S214
...may be sustained on circumstantial evidence alone. Chapman v. State, (1975) Ind.App., 321 N.E.2d 863; Wright v. State, (1974) Ind.App., 316 N.E.2d 385. In determining whether the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence, this Court neither weighs the evidence nor resolves questions o......
-
O'Hara v. State, No. 2--374A74
...304 N.E.2d 321, 326. These elements may be [165 Ind.App. 14] proven by circumstantial evidence alone. Wright v. State (1974), Ind.App., 316 N.E.2d 385. O'Hara attacks his conviction on the ground that it was not supported by sufficient evidence. The evidence outlined above was, however, suf......
-
Maynard v. State, No. 55A01-8604-CR-101
...Ind.App., 415 N.E.2d 152, 156. In addition, a conviction may be based entirely upon the testimony of an accomplice. Id.; Wolfe, 161 Ind.App. at 317, 315 N.E.2d at 374. Therefore, the trial court did not err in admitting the direct testimony of Issue Four Maynard argues the trial court erred......
-
Ingle v. State, No. 2-876A309
...rule" and is not applicable when the testimony offered (as here) is the direct testimony of the co-conspirator. Wolfe v. State (1974), 161 Ind.App. 317, 315 N.E.2d 371. See also Smith v. State (1961), 241 Ind. 601, 174 N.E.2d 47; Smith v. State (1974), 159 Ind.App. 438, 307 N.E.2d PARTIES' ......
-
Grigsby v. State, No. 776S214
...may be sustained on circumstantial evidence alone. Chapman v. State, (1975) Ind.App., 321 N.E.2d 863; Wright v. State, (1974) Ind.App., 316 N.E.2d 385. In determining whether the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence, this Court neither weighs the evidence nor resolves questions o......
-
O'Hara v. State, No. 2--374A74
...304 N.E.2d 321, 326. These elements may be [165 Ind.App. 14] proven by circumstantial evidence alone. Wright v. State (1974), Ind.App., 316 N.E.2d 385. O'Hara attacks his conviction on the ground that it was not supported by sufficient evidence. The evidence outlined above was, however, suf......