Opinion ID: 2171561
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: The defendant's charge of insufficiency of the evidence is premised upon his argument that the only connection between Caldwell and the murder was the testimony of his former co-defendant, Anderson. Caldwell concedes that a criminal defendant may be convicted based solely upon the testimony of an accomplice. Coleman v. State (1975), 264 Ind. 64, 67, 339 N.E.2d 51, 54. The fact that the accomplice was granted a benefit by the State in order to encourage such testimony, the defendant admits, goes to the weight of the testimony and not the accomplice-witness's competency. Caldwell argues, however, that due to the inherently suspect nature of testimony given by an accomplice, it is essential that the terms of any deal struck between the accomplice-witness and the State must be fully divulged to the jury such that they can adequately assess the weight of the witness' testimony. See, Adler v. State (1967), 248 Ind. 193, 197, 225 N.E.2d 171, 173; Newman v. State (1975), Ind., 263 Ind. 569, 334 N.E.2d 684. Although Caldwell correctly states the law, he is incorrect in his accusations that the jury in this case was not fully apprised of the agreement struck between the prosecutor and Anderson. The record reveals that the jury was fully aware that murder charges originally had been brought against Anderson. Her confession, the recanting of that confession, her conviction on charges of obstruction of justice, and even the signed plea agreement entered into by Anderson were all presented to the jury. Caldwell also argues that although the plea agreement was entered into evidence, the jurors, in their lay capacity, were unable to appreciate the benefits that the witness expected to receive in exchange for her testimony or the nature of the danger that she faced prior to entering into this agreement. Despite the fact that members of a jury are typically without degrees in law, they are certainly competent to understand the difference between being convicted of murder and being convicted of obstruction of justice, which they were told was a class D felony. The jury was sufficiently informed of the agreement between Anderson and the State to adequately assess her truthfulness and veracity. It was the jury's duty to accept or reject her testimony based on this assessment. Anderson's testimony notwithstanding, the evidence presented in this case was sufficient to sustain Caldwell's conviction. Sylvia Williams' testified that she sold a .22 caliber handgun to Caldwell two days prior to Turner's murder. Bobby Wade testified that he completed this sale by placing the .22 caliber gun in Caldwell's car. The gun, identified by Wade, was found in Caldwell's motel room. Balistics experts testified that the gun found in the room was used to murder Sharon Turner. The trial record reveals that Caldwell arrived at Turner's home because he had heard Turner was murdered prior to the time that the murder was publicized. Additionally, Caldwell had attempted to obtain from Detective DeBoard information regarding the progress of the investigation and had solicited Anderson, Williams and Wade in an attempt to have them sign false affidavits regarding the facts surrounding the murder. Sufficient corroborating evidence exists to affirm these convictions.