Opinion ID: 2251433
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sufficiency of Murder Information

Text: Appellant argues that the murder information is insufficient because it did not charge him as an accessory. He maintains that the evidence only establishes that he was an accomplice and therefore the verdict was contrary to law since he was convicted as a principal. Assuming arguendo that the evidence does not establish that appellant had the status of a principal in the murder of Ingram, there is no merit to Catrabone's claim. An accused can be charged as a principal and be convicted on proof that he was an accessory to another for the substantive offense. Hoskins v. State (1982), Ind., 441 N.E.2d 419. An accomplice is criminally liable for the acts of his confederates and may be held responsible as a principal. Ind. Code § 35-41-2-4; Woodford v. State (1985), Ind., 484 N.E.2d 563.