Court Opinion

ID: 9735064
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:59:41.414445+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:54.970850
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
Jackson, J.
I am unable to concur in the majority opinion herein and dissent thereto.
While we do not weigh the evidence on appeal we will review to determine whether or not the judgment is sustained by substantial evidence of probative value. Baker v. State (1956), 236 Ind. 55, 138 N. E. 2d 641; Lamar v. State (1952), 231 Ind. 508, 109 N. E. 2d 614.
In the case at bar the State’s evidence is so carelessly presented that it seems to be lacking in sufficient evidence of probative value to sustain the judgment of conviction.
*264The defendant-appellant was found guilty of the crime of robbery, and as punishment drew a sentence of not less than ten (10) nor more than twenty-five (25) years in the Indiana State Prison. At the very least he is entitled to be fairly tried and legally convicted. The record in this case is such that grave doubt exists as to the legality of his conviction. Manlove v. State (1968), 250 Ind. 70, 232 N. E. 2d 874; Easton v. State (1967), 248 Ind. 338, 228 N. E. 2d 6; Baker v. State, supra.
I am not impressed by the State’s- argument in favor of waiver. The State is required to prove the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt and its burden does not shift.
The affidavit charged, inter alia, the property taken “was the property of United Oil Service, Inc., a corporation”. There is an old rulé of law to the affect that if the affidavit or indictment contains averments in excess of the language necessary to properly charge the offense, the State having voluntarily assumed that burden must sustain it. There is no evidence in the record as to the corporate existence of United Oil Service, Inc., a corporation.
The judgment should be reversed and remanded with instructions to sustain the motion to correct errors;
Note.—Reported in 263 N. E. 2d 725.