Case Title: Hauger v. State

Citation: 405 N.E.2d 526

Docket Number: 1278S290

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 1980-06-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
405 N.E.2d 526 (1980)
Gail HAUGER, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 1278S290.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
June 10, 1980.
*527 Harriette Bailey Conn, Public Defender, David P. Freund, Kurt A. Young, Deputy Public Defenders, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Thomas D. Quigley, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
PIVARNIK, Justice.
Defendant-appellant Gail Hauger was charged in Sullivan Circuit Court with burglary, Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1 (Burns 1979 Repl.), and theft, § 35-43-4-2. He was found guilty by a jury on both counts. The trial court sentenced him to twenty years on the burglary count and to four years on the theft count. Appellant raises four issues for our consideration, concerning: (1) whether the trial court erred in allowing the prosecutor to ask appellant questions on cross-examination concerning prior convictions; (2) whether the trial court erred in refusing two of appellant's tendered instructions; (3) whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction; and (4) whether the trial court erred in imposing the maximum sentence allowed by statute.
Appellant first contends the trial court erroneously allowed the prosecutor to ask improper questions on cross-examination. As appellant's direct testimony was drawing to a close, his counsel asked him, in seven separate questions, whether he had ever been convicted of robbery, burglary, arson, fraud, kidnapping, murder, or treason. Appellant answered "No" to each question. On cross-examination, the prosecutor established, over objection, that appellant had been convicted of assault on a police officer, theft on two occasions, and escape. Appellant now contends these questions were improper under the rule of Ashton v. Anderson, (1971) 258 Ind. 51, 279 N.E.2d 210.
We think, however, that this evidence, like the evidence defense counsel adduced on direct examination, related to appellant's character, not his credibility. By establishing that appellant had never been convicted of the crimes mentioned, which included burglary, the crime charged in the present case, appellant was attempting to present himself as a person of good character, one unlikely to have committed the charged crime. Once the defendant placed his character in issue in this manner, the prosecutor had a right to present evidence of his bad character. In this situation, Ashton v. Anderson, supra, does not apply. There is no error here. Robertson v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 562, 319 N.E.2d 833.
Appellant next argues the trial court erroneously refused two of his tendered instructions. His tendered final instruction number three reads as follows:
Tendered final instruction number four states:
Appellant argues that these instructions met the three-part test of Davis v. State, (1976) 265 Ind. 476, 355 N.E.2d 836, and, therefore, should have been given. The Davis case pointed out:
Id. at 478, 355 N.E.2d  at 838 (citations omitted).
In the case before us, we find that the third part of this test has not been met. State's tendered final instruction number six, which was given by the trial court, also deals with the concept of circumstantial evidence. That instruction states:
This instruction was based on an instruction approved by this Court in Wolfe v. State, (1928) 200 Ind. 557, 159 N.E. 545. We think this instruction correctly states the law and covers substantially the same ground as the two instructions tendered by appellant. Therefore, the court did not err in refusing to give these two instructions. Davis v. State, supra.
Appellant next challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. He also argues that this Court should alter its review standard, citing Jackson v. Virginia, (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560, 99 S. Ct. 2781. The Jackson case dealt strictly with the standard of review to be applied by federal district courts in habeas corpus actions in reviewing whether the evidence was sufficient to support a state court conviction. We think our own standard of review fully complies with the Fourteenth Amendment and the principles discussed in Jackson v. Virginia, supra.
Our standard of review regarding sufficiency questions is the same in all cases. We will not reweigh the evidence, judge the credibility of witnesses, or resolve conflicts in the evidence. To do so would usurp the function of the jury. Rather, we will look to that evidence most favorable to the State to determine if there was substantial evidence of probative value from which the jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Ruetz v. State, (1978) Ind., 373 N.E.2d 152.
In the case before us, the evidence most favorable to the State reveals that appellant Gail Hauger and apparently one other person went to the home of Vernal Powers at approximately 9:00 p.m. on February 8, 1978. No one was home at the time, and the two men proceeded to gain entry into the house by breaking a window. They removed, among other things, a television set and a tool box full of tools. Initially, they took the property to the home of appellant's father, Lloyd Hauger. At his father's house, appellant stated to at least one person that he had cut his hand while breaking a window to enter a house. He also asked witness Fred Walls to go with him to the house where he had sustained the cut and help him clean up any blood and fingerprints which might have been there. Walls testified that he refused to make this trip with appellant.
*529 Subsequently, the property was removed from Lloyd Hauger's residence. The television set was disposed of at a nearby massage parlor. Appellant and Fred Walls sold the tools to Dick Clough. The television and tools were subsequently recovered by police and identified by Vernal Powers as some of the property taken from his home. Fred Walls and Dick Clough identified these same articles as those disposed of by appellant the night of, and the day after, the burglary. Other witnesses also testified that they saw these articles in appellant's possession at these same times. Thus, we think there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant committed this burglary.
Finally, appellant claims the trial judge abused his discretion in sentencing appellant. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5 (Burns 1979 Repl.) provides in part:
Ind. Code § 35-50-1A-7 (Burns 1979 Repl.) provides that the trial court may consider the following factors as "aggravating circumstances":
The trial court sentenced appellant to twenty years imprisonment, the maximum term allowed under the statute.
At the sentencing hearing, the trial court heard evidence, inspected the presentence investigation report, and made, inter alia, the following findings:
Further, the presentence investigation report indicates appellant had been jailed twenty-six times, had been committed to the Indiana State Farm three times, and had previously been sent to the Indiana Boys School. In addition, appellant's testimony at trial reveals that he has been convicted of assault on a police officer in Illinois. In light of all of this evidence and the findings made by the trial court, we cannot say the sentence imposed was manifestly unreasonable.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
All Justices concur.