Court Opinion

ID: 9526180
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:13:52.183208+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:09:02.140535
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
DeBruler, J.
The evidence presented by the State which may be deemed relevant to establishing that appellant was over the age of 16 years at the time of this alleged offense does not differ significantly from that evidence of age found insufficient to support a conviction for armed robbery in *53Watson v. State, (1956) 236 Ind. 329, 140 N.E.2d 109. It is therefore patent that the conviction on Count II for armed robbery would be reversed and a new trial ordered on that count, but for the waiver of the right to appeal on this issue imposed by the majority opinion.
In recent years, this Court has not permitted lack of specificity in motions to correct errors to stand in the way of reaching the merits of appellate claims. Kleinrichert v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 537, 297 N.E.2d 822; Williams v. State, (1969) 253 Ind. 316, 253 N.E.2d 242; Lewis v. State, (1969) 252 Ind. 454, 250 N.E.2d 358; Branan v. State, (1974) Ind. App., 316 N.E.2d 406. See also, Farmer v. State, (1971) 257 Ind. 511, 275 N.E.2d 783. We have ignored this type of technical defect in order to prevent future wasteful post-conviction proceedings and to provide equality of treatment and fairness. Particularly is this true of a sufficiency claim. A conviction without evidence is a denial of due process. Thompson v. Louisville, (1960) 362 U.S. 199, 80 S.Ct. 624, 4 L.Ed.2d 654. Sufficiency of evidence is a constitutional claim. Here, the motion to correct errors challenged the sufficiency of evidence without specifying wherein the evidence was deemed to be insufficient. In effect, this claim raised the sufficiency claim as to each element of the offense including the element of age. The trial judge knew what the statutory elements were. He heard the evidence. He had once ruled on a motion for directed verdict. I consider the claim of insufficiency of the evidence of age to be properly before this Court. The conviction on Count II for armed robbery should be reversed on authority of Watson v. State, supra. The conviction for kidnapping should be affirmed.
Note. — Reported at 338 N.E.2d 629.