Title: Hitch v. State

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

284 N.E.2d 783 (1972)
James C. HITCH, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 1270S312.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
July 7, 1972.
Rehearing Denied September 15, 1972.
*784 William C. Erbecker, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Darrel K. Diamond, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
PRENTICE, Justice.
The defendant (appellant) was charged by affidavit in two counts of Robbery by Putting in Fear (1956 Repl. Burns Ind. Stat. Ann. § 10-4101, IC 1971, XX-XX-X-X, Acts of 1941, ch. 148, § 6) and Robbery While Armed (1968 Supp. Burns Ind. Stat. Ann. § 10-4709, Acts of 1929, ch. 55, § 1 as amended by Acts of 1965, ch. 298, § 1) *785 IC 1971 XX-XX-X-X. He was convicted of a lesser included offense of Theft From the Person under 1969 Supp. Burns Ind. Stat. Ann. § 10-3030, IC 1971, XX-XX-X-X, Acts of 1963 [Spec.Sess.] ch. 10, § 3) and he was fined $1,000.00 and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years. His motion to correct errors assigns four general errors pursued by this appeal: (1) Sufficiency of the charging affidavit to withstand his motion to quash, (2) sufficiency of the evidence to withstand his motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of the State's evidence, (3) the court's refusal to give certain instructions hereinafter set forth, and (4) the verdict was a compromise, the offense of which he was convicted not being a lesser included offense of the one for which he was charged.
(1) The charging affidavit, in pertinent parts, was as follows:
The motion to quash and supporting memorandum, in pertinent parts, was as follows:
*786 The rule in effect at the time of the filing of the motion to quash was Rule 1-3B, adopted June 28, 1960, effective September 1, 1960, which is the same as the current Criminal Rule 3(A) and is as follows:
The purpose of the memorandum rule is to enlighten the Court. A memorandum which, as here, merely repeats the conclusions of the motion does not fulfil such purpose and therefore does not meet the requirements of the rule. It is unrealistic to think that counsel may, by a mere suggestion of error, thrust upon the court the burden of independently exhausting the possibilities that he may correct. Reasons and authorities are the lawyers' work product and become the tools of the court, without which it cannot function. There was no error in the overruling of the motion to quash.
(2) The evidence in the case disclosed the following: The defendant came into the Ewing Cafe at approximately 12:45 a.m. and asked the bartender for a loan, which was refused. The conversation between the two lasted beyond 1:00 a.m., at which time the bartender began his preparation for closing, and he was unable to say whether or not the defendant left the tavern. Most of the lights were turned out, leaving the room dimly lighted. Approximately ten minutes after the aforementioned conversation had been concluded, two masked men entered the cafe through the main entrance, which was the only entry that was not locked. The taller of the two was the approximate size of the defendant, wore a black coat and had a gun in his hand. He ordered the bartender to hand over the money, whereupon the bartender placed a cigar box containing the money upon the bar. The bandit then removed the money, placed it in his pocket and ordered everybody present to turn over their wallets and to lie on the floor. In addition to the bartender, there were five patrons and a waitress in the room, and they all complied. Earlier, the police had received a call that there were two masked men on the street in front of the Ewing Cafe. As they arrived to investigate, they observed a masked man, with a gun in his hand, backing out the door. When they ordered him to halt, he ran back into the room. Two shots were fired, which momentarily deterred the entry of the police. Mr. Jackey, a patron, was lying on the floor. When he heard the door close, he began to rise but heard a shot and the masked man say "Keep your head down." The masked man ran behind the bar, removed his coat and went into the kitchen area, returned and fired another shot, leaned over the bar and yelled, "One is still here" and laid down on the floor. When the police entered, they found several people lying on the floor. The defendant was pointed out to them as the bandit by Mr. Jackey and by the waitress. The premises were searched, and the police found a black coat containing two men's wallets, a mask, gloves and $502.00 in the pocket. A gun was found in the beer cooler behind the *787 bar. At the trial, Mr. Jackey identified the defendant as the bandit. The foregoing evidence was ample to withstand the defendant's motion for a directed verdict and the subsequent verdict.
Upon the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court will consider only that evidence most favorable to the State, together with all logical and reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom. The conviction will be affirmed if, from that viewpoint, there is substantial evidence of probative value from which the trier of fact could reasonably infer that the appellant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Fuller v. State (1971), Ind., 271 N.E.2d 720; Gibson v. State (1971), Ind., 271 N.E.2d 706.
(3) The court refused the defendant's tendered preliminary instructions number 1 and 4 which were as follows:
It is the defendant's contention that the denial of these instructions resulted in a failure to instruct the jury that it was the judge of the law and the facts. However the following excerpts from the court's preliminary Instruction No. 7 was sufficient for such purposes:
It is not error to refuse an instruction covered by other proper instructions. Sargeant v. State (1970), Ind., 263 N.E.2d 525; Lambert v. State (1969), 252 Ind. 441, 249 N.E.2d 502.
*788 Further, tendered Instruction No. 1 was erroneous insofar as it instructed that the jury was the exclusive judge of the law. This question was resolved to the contrary in the very case that Appellant has cited in support of the erroneous instruction, Beavers v. State (1956), 236 Ind. 549, 141 N.E.2d 118. Chief Justice Arterburn writing for a unanimous Court said:
The defendant's tendered preliminary instruction No. 7 was as follows:
The court's preliminary instruction No. 7 (supra) continued as follows:
The factors set forth in that portion of the court's preliminary instruction No. 7 last above quoted covered, in substance, those contained in the defendant's tendered preliminary instruction No. 7. In Brewer v. State (1969), 253 Ind. 154, 252 N.E.2d 429 we said:
Defendant's tendered final instruction No. 1 was refused. It was as follows:
The defendant contends that the refusal of such instruction was error in that there was insufficient direct evidence to convict, hence he was entitled to the tendered instruction as a correct statement upon the weight and effect of circumstantial evidence. He errs in his major premise. As can be readily seen from the foregoing recital of the evidence, his conviction did not depend upon inferences to be drawn from circumstantial evidence. There was circumstantial evidence presented that supported and strengthened the direct evidence, but the direct evidence, standing alone, would have been sufficient to convict. Instructions upon circumstantial evidence are not required to be given where the evidence of guilt is direct and positive or where some is direct and some is circumstantial. Wolfe v. State (1928), 200 Ind. 557, 159 N.E. 545.
*790 Defendant's tendered final instruction No. 2 was refused. It was as follows:
Although the tendered instruction was correct as an abstract proposition of law, Chesterfield v. State (1923), 194 Ind. 282, 141 N.E. 632; Ross v. State (1932), 204 Ind. 281, 182 N.E. 865; Holland v. State (1892), 131 Ind. 568, 31 N.E. 359, the defendant has failed to cite us to any case where the jury was so instructed, and our independent research has disclosed none. We are of the opinion that the instruction, as tendered, would tend to overemphasize the presumption and be an invasion of the province of the jury to determine its weight. It is to be noted from Holland v. State (supra) and Ross v. State (supra) that if, under the evidence, the jury is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of a defendant's guilt, the good character of the defendant is of no avail. And in Chesterfield v. State (supra) we held to be proper an instruction that informed the jury that if, after considering all the evidence they found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty, then the fact, if it was a fact, that his reputation for peace and quietude was good, would not avail as a defense. From the foregoing cases, we are of the opinion that an instruction such as the one tendered would be proper if, and only if, it is qualified by also instructing that the jury is the judge of the weight to be given to such presumption and that if it should be satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant, after a full consideration of all the evidence and such presumption, then, in view of that view of the case, though the jury might believe the defendant had a good character before the alleged crime, that would not avail him as a defense or entitle him to an acquittal.
The defendant's third tendered final instruction, hereinafter set forth, was properly refused, inasmuch as he did not testify, and his reputation for truth and veracity was thus not in issue.
Defendant's tendered final instruction No. 5 was also refused. It was as follows:
There is nothing favorable to the defendant in the above tendered instruction not embodied in his tendered final instructions No. 9 and No. 28, which were as follows:
(4) The final question for consideration is whether the offense of theft from the person under Burns Ind. Stat. Ann. § 10-3030, IC 1971, XX-XX-X-X, Acts of 1963 [Spec.Sess.] ch. 10, § 3 and Burns Ind. Stat. Ann. § 10-3039(5) (c), IC 1971, XX-XX-X-XX, Acts of 1963 [Spec.Sess.] ch. 10, § 12 is a lesser included offense from robbery by putting in fear (supra). Appellant contends that the two offenses are incompatible because theft is accomplished by "stealth and in a surreptitious manner." The tests for included offenses, however, have recently been stated in Hash v. State (1972), Ind., 284 N.E.2d 770. We there observed that in determining whether one offense is an included offense of the other, it is necessary to look to the statutes, the charging affidavit or indictment and to the evidence of the particular case. The beginning point is the statute, and in this connection the rule has been clearly stated in Watford v. State (1957), 237 Ind. 10, 15, 143 N.E.2d 405, 407, as follows:
Under such test, it is immediately apparent that it would be impossible to commit the offense of robbery by putting in fear without having committed a theft from the person. Robbery by putting in fear requires a taking from the person of another an article of value by putting such person in fear. A theft from the person is committed when one obtains unauthorized control over property of the owner with intent to deprive the owner of the use or benefit thereof. If the offense is accomplished without putting in fear the person from whom control of the property is obtained, it is a theft from the person, but if the element of putting such person in fear is added, then the offense is robbery by putting in fear. The taking of something from the person of another by putting him in fear of necessity is an obtaining of unauthorized control of such property. In essence, the charge of simple theft under the statute, i.e. theft not from the person, is the same as our former charge of larceny. We have previously held that "* * * Robbery is a larceny in which the taking of property is accomplished by violence or threat of violence to the person from whom the property is taken; it is an aggravated larceny. * * * But under our present definitions of robbery and larceny one cannot be guilty of the offense of robbery without having committed the acts which constitute the offense of larceny. * * *." Jacoby v. State (1936), 210 Ind. 49, 54-55, 199 N.E. 563, 566.
In this respect, we cannot distinguish between theft under our present statute and larceny under the earlier one. When we look to the charging affidavit in the case at bar, we find no allegations that would restrict the robbery alleged to a set of circumstances that would not necessarily include a theft from the person, and when we look to the evidence, we find support for a conviction of both robbery by putting in fear and theft from the person. We acknowledge an apparent incongruity in that, as contended by the defendant, it appears that since he offered no evidence, the same evidence presented by the State which supported a verdict of robbery from the person equally supported a verdict of robbery *792 by putting in fear. It is by virtue of this that the defendant insists that the verdict was a compromise verdict and invalid. The jury, however, was not required to find that the taking from the bartender was accomplished by putting him in fear, although there was considerable evidence to that effect. When it is clearly established that the crime charged was consummated and that the accused, who denies any connection with such crime, is either guilty of the crime charged or none at all, there is no basis for a verdict of guilty of a lesser offense. It was for this reason that an instruction upon the lesser included offense was properly denied in Hash v. State (supra). Where, however, the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict of the lesser offense, the verdict cannot be considered a compromise. 23A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1374.
Finding no error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
ARTERBURN, C.J., and DeBRULER, GIVAN and HUNTER, JJ., concur.