Court Opinion

ID: 9743876
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:47:44.217689+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:44.601044
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
Sullivan, P.J
Upon the principal issue before this court, the majority affirms the decision of the trial court, giving as *306the reason that this court will not weigh conflicting evidence. I cannot subscribe to such holding.
In my view, the proposition last mentioned is wholly inapplicable in that the evidence upon the issue, i.e., the physical custody of the defendant Hutcherson by law enforcement officers in Tenessee, was uncontroverted.
The legal effect of the clear and uncontroverted statement of the Sheriff of Marshall County, Tennessee, concerning the defendant’s whereabouts during the period in question is not in any degree lessened by the mere presence of defendant’s signature or purported signature upon papers which were filed in his behalf in the Marion County Criminal Court. In this connection, it is important to note that the state does not argue, nor does the majority decide, that the filing of pleadings or petitions on behalf of a criminal defendant establishes, as a matter of law, that the defendant was physically present within the jurisdiction.
Any possible inference that Hutcherson was, at a time or times pertinent, physically present within Marion County, Indiana, which inference could only be drawn from the presence of his signature or purported signature upon various motions filed upon his behalf, is totally destroyed by the fact of Hutcherson’s continuous physical presence within the State of Tennessee during such times. Butterfield v. Trittipo et al. (1879), 67 Ind. 338. As stated in N. Y. Central R.R. Co. v. Green (1938), 105 Ind. App. 488, 496-497, 15 N. E. 2d 748:
“Verdicts rightfully stand upon evidence and not upon mere conjecture. The mere possibility that a thing may be true will not legitimately sustain the inference that it is true. See C.C.C. & St. L. R.R. Co. v. Miller (1898), 149 Ind. 508 [490], 49 N. E. 445; Equitable Life Ins. Soc. of the United States v. Campbell (1926), 85 Ind. App. 450, 150 N. E. 31, 151 N. E. 682; Deery v. Hall (1933), 96 Ind. App. 683, 175 N. E. 141. When a fact is clearly established by the undisputed evidence there is then no room for an inference that such fact does not exist.”
*307The logic and propriety of such rule of law was cogently explained in Parker v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (N. D. Ind. 1957), 146 F. Supp. 871, 873:
“An inference cannot be drawn which is diametrically opposed to the positive evidence. The only kind of an inference recognized by the law is a reasonable one.”
For the reasons stated, I feel that the judgment below is contrary to law in that it is wholly unsupported by the evidence or by reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom.
Note. — Reported in 271 N. E. 2d 896.