Court Opinion

ID: 9716472
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:40:53.068934+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:45.827265
License: Public Domain

Opinion Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part
Garrard, J.
— I concur in the affirmance of Smith’s conviction.
However, I dissent to that portion of the opinion reversing Guire’s conviction,
The entire argument contained in Guire’s brief addressed to the sufficiency of the evidence is as follows:
“In the State of Indiana, it is well settled that to sustain a conviction, the record in a criminal case must contain some evidence to prove every essential element of the offense charged, [citation omitted] There is no evidence of probative value to prove that Delilah Guire committed the crime charged in thé affidavit.”
Such a bare assertion, without any specification of the elements of the offense, the evidence applicable to them, and upon which element or elements the deficiency is thought to exist, hardly complies with the requirements of Indiana Rules of Procedure, Appellate Rule 8.3(A)(7). Foster v. State (1974), 262 Ind. 567, 320 N.E.2d 745.
Moreover, it must be recalled that an accessory before the fact may be charged and convicted as a principal. IC 1971, 35-1-29-1 (Burns Code Ed.).
Here the evidence that Guire was in the store while it was closed for business and assisted in carrying the stolen items from the store to Smith’s car was sufficient to establish that she aided and. abetted commission of the theft. See, Tinsley v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 577, 298 N.E.2d 429, where substantially the same evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction of being an accessory to burglary.
There was no error in this conviction and it should- be affirmed.,
Note. — Reported at 339 N.E.2d 118.