Court Opinion

ID: 9722970
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:58:51.565417+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:43.455312
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
DeBruler, J.
Appellant was convicted of armed robbery. Ind. Code § 35-12-1-1 (Burns 1975) defining such crime provides : “Any person who being over sixteen [16] years of age, commits or attempts to commit. . . .” This section of the statute makes age an essential element of the offense. Watson v. State, (1956) 236 Ind. 329, 140 N.E.2d 109; Goldstine v. State, (1952) 230 Ind. 343, 103 N.E.2d 438. A conviction for armed robbery must therefore be predicated upon a finding of fact by the trier of fact that the accused was *19over the age of sixteen years at the time of the alleged offense. Here, as accepted by the majority, no evidence whatsoever was presented at the trial upon which this necessary finding of fact could have been made. The conviction cannot therefore, consistent with due process of law, be permitted to stand as there is no evidence in the record which rationally justifies a finding that appellant was over sixteen years of age at the time of the offense. Thompson v. City of Louisville, (1960) 362 U.S. 199, 80 S.Ct. 624, 4 L.Ed.2d 654, 80 A.L.R.2d 1355.
Note. — Reported at 366 N.E.2d 1164.