Court Opinion

ID: 9709041
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:38:42.882215+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:45.529346
License: Public Domain

CONOVER, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. There is substantial evidence of probative value in this case which supports the trial court's judgment. Thus, in my opinion, we should affirm the trial court.
The following probative facts appear in the record:
1. Sheppard placed a telephone call while in jail through a third person to the witness. During that call, Sheppard told her he was not the robber, told her he would be number two in the lineup, and asked her not to identify number two as the perpetrator.
2. Sheppard later contacted the witness by letter. It ended with a request she keep the fact he was soliciting her not to identify him as the robber a secret.
3. The witness received at least one other phone call from Sheppard, the result being she asked a police officer if he could get Sheppard to quit calling her at work and "harrassing her and so forth."
4. Officer Gillespie's memory as to his first conversation with the witness, while faulty as to whether the word "you" or "me" was used in the context of something happening "if I do twenty years," under all of the other circumstances in this case constitutes probative evidence for the court's consideration.
Finally, it is the trier of fact's exclusive province to resolve conflicts in the evidence and determine the credibility of witnesses. In case of conflicting evidence, the trier of fact is not obliged to believe the testimony of the defendant or any other particular witness. @raves v. State (1984), Ind., 472 N.E.2d 190. If the trier of fact deems a witness unworthy of credit, it is not bound to believe his testimony simply because he has testified. @Grossenbacher v. State (1984), Ind., 468 N.E.2d 1056. It is free to believe whomever it chooses in its fact finding function, MeBrady v. State (1984), Ind., 459 N.E.2d 719, and has a right to believe part of the testimony of a witness, and disbelieve and reject part thereof. Thomas v. State (1988), Ind., 451 N.E.2d 651.
There is substantial evidence of probative value in this record Sheppard attempted to "coerce" the witness, Patton. It supports the trial court's judgment Sheppard was guilty of attempted obstruction of justice.
For those reasons, I would sustain the trial court.