Court Opinion

ID: 9703805
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:08:10.017036+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:51.742146
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion.
DeBruler, J.
I concur in the result reached by the majority because it is my judgment that there is a total lack of evidence in the record of this case from which a trier of fact could infer that the defendant had the requisite intent to commit a theft. It therefore follows that since intent to commit theft is a necessary element of the crime with which the defendant was charged and convicted, the finding of the trial court is not supported by any evidence and a new trial must be granted. Howard v. State (1923) 193 Ind. 599, 141 N. E. 341.
*443I cannot concur with the tests applied by the majority to determine whether or not there was, as a matter of law, sufficient evidence to sustain the finding, since these tests do not recognize the inherent limitation on the scope of appellate review as expressed in Mandich v. State (1945) 224 Ind. 209, 66 N. E. 2d 69, and White v. State (1948) 226 Ind. 309, 79 N. E. 2d 771. In the instant case, I believe that it is sufficient to state that as a matter of law, this Court determines that the mere unauthorized entry of a person into a building containing articles which could be easily carried away is insufficient to prove intent to steal those articles.