Court Opinion

ID: 9716384
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:37:07.559397+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:44.891915
License: Public Domain

*92Concurring Opinion
Garrard, J.
I concur with the majority that Winston’s conviction be affirmed.
However, I do not believe it necessary to establish Winston’s personal control over the electric saw in question.
IC 1971, 35-1-29-1, Ind. Ann. Stat. §9-102 (Burns 1974 Supp.) provides that every person who aids or abets in the commission of a felony may be charged and convicted in the same manner as if he were a principal, and upon conviction he shall suffer the same punishment as prescribed for the punishment of the principal.
This statute permits the accessory to be charged as a principal. Schmidt v. State (1970), 255 Ind. 443, 265 N.E.2d 219.
The evidence was ample to sustain Winston’s guilt as an accessory before the fact. Cotton v. State (1965), 247 Ind. 56, 211 N.E.2d 158, 212 N.E.2d 159.
Note.—Reported at 326 N.E.2d 592.