Case Title: Wooden v. State

Citation: 486 N.E.2d 441

Docket Number: 184S18

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 1985-12-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
486 N.E.2d 441 (1985)
Herbert W. WOODEN, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 184S18.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
December 2, 1985.
*442 Walter E. Bravard, Jr., Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Ind., Michael Gene Worden, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
DeBRULER, Justice.
This is a direct appeal from a conviction of robbery, a class B felony, I.C. § 35-42-5-1. A jury tried the case. Appellant received a fifteen year sentence.
Appellant raises four issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred in admitting State's Exhibit No. 1 into evidence: (2) whether trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial; (3) whether trial court erred in limiting the cross-examination of State's witness DeRee; (4) whether the evidence supports his conviction for robbery.
These are the facts from the record that tend to support the determination of guilt. On January 5, 1983, Mr. Paul DeRee was an assistant manager for the Wake-up Oil Station at 1501 East 34th Street, Indianapolis. At 5:30 a.m., DeRee and his brother-in-law opened the station. Prior to 6:00 a.m., appellant entered the station, pulled out a gun, and asked for the keys to the backroom. He searched DeRee and his brother-in-law, but was unable to find money on either of them. Then, appellant repeatedly demanded the keys to the safe; however, DeRee told him that he did not have the keys. Eventually, appellant found some money. Thereafter, he made the telephone inoperable and threatened to shoot them if they left the station. After appellant departed, DeRee left the station and telephoned the police. Two days later, DeRee observed appellant and followed him to an address. DeRee notified the police. Subsequently, DeRee identified appellant in a photographic array and in a physical lineup. DeRee also identified him at trial.
Appellant argues that the trial court erred in admitting State's Exhibit 2, a drawing of the area of the robbery. Specifically, he contends that the Exhibit was not drawn to scale and thus, it could only hinder the jury in its deliberations.
Snyder v. State (1979), 182 Ind. App. 24, 393 N.E.2d 802, 810.
State's witness, Paul DeRee, testified that the drawing would be of aid to him in describing the events of the robbery to the jury and that the drawing was a fair representation of the pertinent area. Furthermore, the prosecutor, through his questioning of DeRee, informed the jury that the plan had not been drawn to scale. Also, State's witness, McDougal, testified that the drawing was a fair representation of the pertinent area.
Under these circumstances, the admission of the drawing did no harm to appellant. The drawing was sufficiently illustrative of relevant testimony to be of potential help to the trier of fact.
Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial. On the day of trial, appellant filed a Motion in Limine. The purpose of the motion was to prevent at trial any reference to a prior offense involving a gun in which appellant was a suspect. The trial court held a hearing on the motion. Subsequently, the trial court granted the motion with the exception that the police officer could explain how appellant was brought to his attention so long as there was no reference to the details of the incident or the gun. At trial, Detective Barton testified in relevant part as follows:
After the conclusion of Detective Barton's testimony on direct examination, appellant moved, out of the presence of the jury, for a mistrial on the basis of a perceived violation of the order in limine in Detective Barton's testimony. The trial court denied the motion for motion for mistrial, and appellant expressly refused to request an admonishment on the basis that the prejudicial effect was too great to be cured.
Detective Barton's testimony was in conformity with the restrictions set up in the order in limine because it contained no reference to the details nor the involvement of a gun. The restrictions did fairly balance the interests of the prosecution in describing its investigation and the interests of the accused in a trial free of matter suggesting irrelevant immoral conduct on his part. The vestigial prejudice arising from the testimony connecting appellant with a prior offense did not rise to such a grievous level as to deny him a fair trial. The trial court therefore properly denied the motion for mistrial.
Appellant argues that the trial court erred in limiting his cross-examination of State's witness DeRee. The pertinent part of the cross-examination is set forth here:
*444 Appellant claims that the question was relevant as to prejudice and bias. His theory is that the witness may have been eager to solve the robbery in order to atone to his superiors.
Clark v. State (1976), 264 Ind. 524, 348 N.E.2d 27, 32.
Clark, supra, at 348 N.E.2d 27, 34.
Here, that reasonable degree of probability that the witness is biased or prejudiced because of the fact of his transfer of employment and alleged demotion as argued, is not present. The witness's efforts to bring the perpetrator of the robbery to justice were diligent in that he called the police immediately and in that he followed the perpetrator to his residence several days later. However, those actions and the testimony concerning them do not give rise to a reasonable inference of bias or prejudice relating to an attempt to impress his employer in order to atone for the robbery of the station. Rather, the witness's actions were those of a normal, conscientious citizen. It is highly speculative to assert that this witness's testimony was improperly influenced by a desire to gain a repromotion to assistant manager. Under such reasoning, one could equally assert that he was biased or prejudiced in favor of appellant in order to punish his employer for demoting him. The trial court correctly sustained the objection to appellant's question.
Appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for robbery.
Bowen v. State (1985), Ind., 478 N.E.2d 44.
In addition, a robbery conviction may be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of one witness. Martin v. State (1983), Ind., 453 N.E.2d 1001, 1003.
The evidence recited in the statement of facts, including the eyewitness testimony of the victims, is clearly sufficient to support his conviction for robbery.
The conviction is affirmed.
GIVAN, C.J., and PRENTICE, PIVARNIK and SHEPARD, JJ. concur.