Summary
upholding a conviction of robbery by putting in fear where "the victim surrendered his property because he was in fear"
Summary of this case from Khamisi-El v. United StatesOpinion
No. 677S389.
Filed November 21, 1977.
1. APPEAL — Sufficiency of Evidence — Standard of Review. — When reviewing sufficiency of evidence, the Supreme Court does not reweigh evidence or judge credibility of witnesses. Looking at the evidence most favorable to the verdict, the Supreme Court will not disturb the verdict if there is substantial evidence of probative value to support each essential element of the offense. p. 239.
2. CRIMINAL LAW — Armed Robbery — Jury May Infer the Victims Fear. — To establish an essential element of armed robbery, it is not necessary for victim to testify that he was actually put in fear, rather there need only be evidence from which jury could infer that victim was put in fear. p. 239.
3. CRIMINAL LAW — Armed Robbery — Sufficiency of Evidence. — Where evidence showed that defendant entered the victim's residence armed with a shotgun, the defendant and his accomplice inquired as to the location of the victim's money and guns, the victim was made to lie on a bed with his hands tied, and a tape player, camera, wallet, money clip, and watch were taken, such evidence was sufficient for the jury to infer that the victim surrendered his property because he was in fear. p. 239.
Defendant-Appellant takes this appeal from his conviction of armed robbery.
From the Marion Criminal Court, Division Two, Samuel Blum, Special Judge.
Affirmed.
Palmer K. Ward, of Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Attorney General, Daniel Lee Pflum, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.
The defendant, James Brewer, was charged with the commission of an armed robbery. Trial was had before a jury, which returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of armed robbery. From a judgment on this verdict sentencing him to twelve years' imprisonment, the defendant appeals, raising only the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's verdict.
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court does not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Looking at the evidence most favorable to the [1] verdict, we will not disturb the verdict if there is substantial evidence of probative value to support each essential element of the offense. Daniels v. State, (1976) 264 Ind. 490, 346 N.E.2d 566; Gaddis v. State, (1969) 253 Ind. 73, 251 N.E.2d 658.
The defendant's specific claim is that the state failed to prove that the taking of the property from the victim was either forcible and by violence or by putting the victim in fear. [2] It is not necessary, as the defendant claims, for the victim to testify that he was actually put in fear. There need only be evidence from which the jury can infer that the victim was put in fear. Roberts v. State, (1976) 265 Ind. 439, 355 N.E.2d 243.
In this case the evidence showed that the defendant entered the victim's residence, armed with a shotgun. The defendant and his accomplice inquired as to the location of the victim's [3] money and guns. The victim was made to lie on a bed with his hands tied. A tape player, a camera, a wallet, money clip, and watch were taken from the victim. The evidence was sufficient for the jury to infer that the victim surrendered his property because he was in fear.
For all the foregoing reasons, there was no trial error and the judgment should be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Givan, C.J., DeBruler, Prentice and Pivarnik, JJ., concur.
NOTE. — Reported at 369 N.E.2d 424.