Opinion ID: 2240253
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Additional Allegations of Error

Text: Appellants also raise several other issues which we will address briefly. A. The appellants claim error from the admission of evidence concerning a stolen motorcycle which DePaul purchased from them. Though it was this motorcycle which led police to the Lucas brothers, no charges concerning the motorcycle were pending against them at trial. This passing reference to an item of stolen merchandise, absent any further evidence about the offense, is not a basis for reversal. Hartwell v. State (1974), 162 Ind. App. 366, 321 N.E.2d 222. B. Paul argues that the trial court erred when it refused to grant separate trials. He argues that he was prejudiced when a witness testified about an out-of-court statement by which Larry referred obliquely to him. Such an incidental reference does not prejudice Paul or merit the increased expenditure of time and money on separate trials. C. Paul alleges photographs of a victim's home and furniture were misleading and admitted without a proper foundation. The jurors were informed of the discrepancies in the photographs. The owner testified that the photographs were true and accurate depictions of his home and stolen dining room set. The foundations were proper and the photographs were not misleading under the circumstances. D. Paul challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress his confession and any evidence obtained from the search of his side of the duplex. First, he argues that his confession was not voluntary and therefore was obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Several police officers rebutted Paul's testimony that his confession was procured when he was enduring extreme pain, hunger, drug withdrawal, fatigue and police threats. Reviewing only the evidence which supports the trial court's ruling, we find no error. Thomas v. State (1983), Ind., 443 N.E.2d 1197. Paul also alleges that evidence seized during the search was inadmissible because, he claims, the probable cause affidavit was defective. He suggests the warrant did not specifically describe his side of the duplex and the officer who prepared the probable cause affidavit did not establish the credibility of his informant. The warrant, which expressly notes that both sides of the duplex are to be searched, contains an adequate description of Paul's unit. Furthermore, the credibility of an informant in a probable cause affidavit is not required when, as in this case, the warrant is based upon the attesting officer's personal observations. Mills v. State (1978), 177 Ind. App. 432, 379 N.E.2d 1023. E. The brothers claim error from the trial court's denial of their motion for change of venue. In support of their motion, they submitted only four newspaper articles, two of which were extremely brief. During voir dire, each prospective juror, save one, was asked whether he had read or heard anything about the case. Only one said he had heard of the case through the media, and he was excused. The defendant has failed to establish a clear and convincing buildup of community prejudice against him, and the trial court thus was within the range of its discretion in denying the motion. Daniels v. State (1983), Ind., 453 N.E.2d 160. F. Paul argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because he was moved 10 times during his incarceration. The transfers were prompted by his two alleged escape attempts. He was never at an inaccessible distance from his attorney's office. We find no error because Paul cites no specific harm resulting from the transfer. Hurley v. State (1983) 446 N.E.2d 1326. G. Larry contends the evidence was insufficient to convict him of the four burglaries. He maintains that the evidence at most established his possession or sale of stolen property because the evidence never placed him at the scene of the crime. However, the undercover officer testified that Larry boasted about burglarizing a home while the owners were in the front yard. Furthermore, the unexplained possession of the stolen property, in addition to the break-ins, was circumstantial evidence of guilt. Lucas' girlfriend also gave incriminating testimony which supported an inference of guilt. Larry's insufficiency claim must fail. H. During the habitual proceedings, the trial court instructed the jury that they could find Paul to be an habitual offender if they found he was convicted of the underlying felonies. That instruction did not comply with Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8, which requires that both commission and sentencing dates must be proven for an habitual offender finding. However, that error was cured by the next instruction which gave the definition of prior unrelated felony convictions. Thus, the charge as a whole properly informed the jury. Hudson v. State (1986), Ind., 496 N.E.2d 1286. I. Paul alleges the trial court erred by refusing to continue the sentencing hearing after he challenged some of the information in the presentence report as inaccurate. The judge instead declared that he would ignore the disputed material in determining sentence, and therefore no harm occurred. J. Appellants jointly claim that the cumulative effect of the alleged errors denied them a fair trial and due process of law. Alleged errors which do not present a single basis for reversal do not gain the stature of reversible error when viewed en masse. Napier v. State (1983), Ind., 445 N.E.2d 1361. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. GIVAN, C.J., and DeBRULER and PIVARNIK, JJ., concur. DICKSON, J., dissents with respect to issue one and concurs with respect to all other issues.