Opinion ID: 2023467
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issues

Text: The next assignment of error concerns the sufficiency of the evidence. Defendant contends that he abandoned the crime and that the homicide was not the ordinary and probable effect of the robbery. When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we, as a court of review, are limited to that evidence most favorable to the State along with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. If from that viewpoint the evidence supports the decision of the trier of fact upon each of the elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt, that decision will not be reversed. Baum v. State, (1976) 264 Ind. 421, 345 N.E.2d 831. In making this determination we will neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. Beasley v. State, (1977) Ind., 370 N.E.2d 360; Robinson v. State, (1977) Ind., 365 N.E.2d 1218. Moten v. State, (1978) Ind., 380 N.E.2d 544, 547. Defendant's first contention  that he abandoned the crime  was decided to the contrary in the preceding issue. His remaining contention  that the homicide was not the ordinary and probable effect of the robbery  was a matter for the jury. Cf., Moten v. State, id . We find that there was sufficient evidence of probative value that defendant and Stroud robbed the two hitchhikers at gunpoint, and that such actions resulted in the death of Norris. We find no reversible error. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. GIVAN, C.J., and DeBRULER, HUNTER and PIVARNIK, JJ., concur.