Court Opinion

ID: 9862353
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 01:07:36.986118+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:25:10.451434
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
Givan, J.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. The evidence in this case is sufficient to permit the jury to draw a reasonable inference that the appellant was the one who had killed the decedent. There was evidence that they had just had an argument leading to a fight, which was broken up by the appearance of a police car.
A few minutes before the decedent was fatally wounded the appellant was seen walking toward the location of the fatal injury. The witness, Julie Overton, testified that she saw two persons fighting in this area and then saw one person dragging an object over by some trash cans. The jury was fully within their province in weighing the evidence to determine that it was the appellant who was seen dragging an object and that that object was the body of the decedent. It was also within the province of the jury to believe that beyond a reasonable doubt it was the appellant who had inflicted the fatal injury. This Court has previously held that a conviction may rest upon reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence. Shutt v. State (1954), 233 Ind. 169, 117 N. E. 2d 892.
The majority opinion does not mention the fact that the witness, Julie Overton, although failing to positively identify the appellaflt as the assailant at his trial had so identified him *541in her testimony before the grand jury. This evidence was admitted at the trial for the purpose of impeaching her testimony. It was within the province of the jury to believe as they apparently did that for reasons either of intimidation or friendship Julie Overton was deliberately withholding positive identification of the appellant at the time of the trial. I believe a reversal of this case by this Court is weighing of the evidence, which invades the province of the trial jury.
I would, therefore, affirm the conviction.
Arterburn, J., concurs.
Note. — Reported in 255 N. E. 2d 657.