Opinion ID: 2251415
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Appellant claims the evidence was insufficient to convict him of murder. The facts are as follows. On the morning of June 6, 1977, Clarence Isakson was shot and killed in his home in Hobart, Indiana. Mrs. Isakson was beaten and shot in the head, but she survived the attack. She told a neighbor that four people in stocking caps had broken in, beaten her, and ransacked the house. She said Mr. Isakson was done for. Mrs. Isakson did not realize she had been shot in the head. At the scene, the police found as evidence a shoe print, a man's wallet, a beer bottle, a glove, and a flashlight. Investigation of the crime led the police to suspect Glenn Cornett and William Shields, the appellant. Police officer Larry Todd was acquainted with Cornett's wife, Phyllis, and he questioned her about her knowledge of the incident. Initially, Phyllis denied having any information about the murder. Todd testified that she appeared shaken when he asked her about it. There was testimony that Phyllis was afraid of her husband and that he had threatened her not to talk to the police about the crime. Finally, however, after Glenn was incarcerated on other charges and Phyllis was reassured that he would not soon be released, she indicated to Officer Todd that she would tell about the Isakson murder. In the first interview of Phyllis, she told the police that Glenn and appellant had killed Isakson. She said that one day in June, 1977, Glenn came home with blood on his clothes. Later, he was upset because he could not find one of his gloves. She also said Shields had a flashlight similar to the one found at the scene. Phyllis told the police that Shields had admitted to her his role in the crime. She said appellant told her that he and Glenn wore ski masks, and that Glenn had kicked in the Isakson's door and Shields had followed with the gun. They hit Mrs. Isakson, and when Shields could not bring himself to shoot her, Glenn took the gun and shot her in the head. Then Glenn shot Mr. Isakson. Phyllis told the police the names of the other two men who drove with Glenn and Shields to the Isakson's house, and she reported the driver's name. In a second interview, Phyllis described the layout of the Isakson's house, and she said the glove found at the scene resembled Glenn's lost glove. Officer Jeffrey Miller testified that her description of the scene was corroborated by the physical evidence and that he checked the newspapers after talking to her and verified that she could not have taken her information from the newspapers. The more Phyllis told them, the more the officers believed that she too had been in the Isakson's house. Nonetheless, she maintained she was not there but that she either dreamed it or Shields had told her about it. Finally, Phyllis admitted that she had been at the scene of the crime. She said she had tried to place it in her mind as only a dream because it had been such a horrible experience. In a third interview, she said that she, Glenn, appellant, and three others drove to the Isakson's house to commit a robbery. Appellant and Glenn went in while the others waited in the car. Phyllis said she saw Mrs. Isakson run out the front door, but Glenn and Shields dragged her back inside. Phyllis then started to approach the house and she heard a gunshot. When she entered, she saw Mrs. Isakson on the floor. Phyllis heard another gunshot, walked down the hall, saw Glenn and caught a glimpse of Mr. Isakson on his bed. Phyllis testified at trial. Her testimony tracked what she had told the detectives little by little in the three interviews. Again, she described the layout of the house and what she observed inside. She said her husband had threatened her to remain silent by holding a gun to her head. She identified Glenn's glove and his footprint from photographs of the scene. She was unequivocal in her testimony that Shields entered the house with Glenn and that while they were inside Mr. Isakson was shot. Her testimony clearly implicated appellant in the murder either as the principal or an accomplice. In support of his claim that the evidence was insufficient, Shields argues specifically that Phyllis' testimony was inherently improbable and unworthy of belief. He points to her motive to have her husband convicted, her attempted suicide, and a visit she made to a psychiatrist. He also reminds us of her prior inconsistent statements, such as her story to the police that she dreamed the incident. Additionally, he points to the testimony of Valparaiso attorney, Calvin Hubbell, who stated that Phyllis telephoned him during the period of time she was being interviewed by the police and told him she did not know anything about the crime and that she had implicated Glenn and appellant only to tell the police what she thought they wanted to hear. Phyllis denied having placed that phone call. Shields is asking that we reweigh the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. We will not, as our standard of review is to look only to the evidence most favorable to the State. Loyd v. State (1980), 272 Ind. 404, 398 N.E.2d 1260. Where substantive evidence of probative value was elicited on each element of the crime, we will not overturn the verdict. Id. Phyllis' testimony was corroborated by physical evidence and, despite some inconsistencies and her initial reluctance to admit her own involvement, she was unequivocal in her implication of appellant. We cannot find she was unworthy of belief. The jury was aware of the inconsistencies in Phyllis' testimony and of her motives and biases, and it alone was responsible for assessing her credibility. Wilson v. State (1983), Ind., 455 N.E.2d 1120. Shields also argues that the court erred in not directing a verdict in his favor after, he claims, the State failed to prove venue and identification of Shields as the perpetrator of the crime. Shields presented a defense at trial, and, therefore, relinquished any argument in favor of a directed verdict. Hall v. State (1978), 269 Ind. 24, 378 N.E.2d 823. In any event, we disagree with him that the State's case was deficient on venue and identification. After Phyllis testified about Shields' role in the crime, she was asked, Do you see Bill Shields, you've said was with you at that house in June of 1977, do you see him in the courtroom today? She answered, Yes, I do, and the prosecutor said, I wonder if you would point him out and describe briefly what he is wearing? Her response was, He's (sic) dark brown jacket with light pants, glasses, moustache. Although the record does not show explicitly that Phyllis pointed out appellant, she was asked to do so and to describe him, which she did. The clear implication is that her identification was of the defendant, William Shields. He has not shown that the identification was insufficient. See, Iseton v. State (1984), Ind. App., 472 N.E.2d 643. Proper venue, proof that the crime charged occurred in the county in which the trial is taking place or from which the cause was removed, must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Morris v. State (1980), 274 Ind. 161, 409 N.E.2d 608. Shields contends the evidence was insufficient to prove that the murder of Mr. Isakson occurred in Lake County, Indiana. As with any sufficiency question, we will not reweigh the evidence. Id. At trial, Ronald Kurth identified himself as a patrolman with the Lake County Police Department. He was dispatched to the scene of the crime when it was first reported. Also, a neighbor of the Isakson's, to whom Mrs. Isakson went for help after the incident, testified that her address was 1205 E. 37th Avenue, Hobart, across the street from the Isaksons, whose address she said was Route I, Hobart Township. We take notice of the fact that Hobart Township is in Lake County, Indiana. Although the State did not elicit direct testimony that proper venue was in Lake County, we find the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to lead the trier of fact to conclude that the venue of the trial was proper. See, Morris v. State (1980), 274 Ind. 161, 409 N.E.2d 608.