Ballard v. StateBallard v. State
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Pivarnik
Dеfendant-appellant Christopher A. Ballard was convicted of Robbery,
The defendant raises two issues on appeal, concerning: 1) whether the jury‘s verdict was contrary to law; and, 2) whether there was sufficient evidenсe to find the defendant guilty of robbery.
The evidence most favorable to the State reveаls that on January 7, 1983, the Kurth Tire Center in Gary, Indiana was the scene of a robbery. Five Kurth employeеs and one customer were in the building at the time. The robber was a young black male wearing a green parka coat and a blue scarf covering the lower portion of his face. The robber brandished a shotgun and demanded money. The employees in the office handed ovеr their money, as did the customer. The victims were told to lie down on the floor and once they сomplied, the robber fled. The employees gave chase and the robber turned and fired thе shot gun. One of the pursuers, John Gurniew-iez, was struck in the legs. The robber ran on and two of the men continuеd their pursuit. The robber turned once again and pointed his gun. The searf had slipped and the pursuers were able to identify the defendant as their assailant. The defendant fled into a housing projеct where he was later apprehended. A search of the premises turned up a shotgun, а blue scarf, a green parka, and a large sum of money hidden in a crawl space.
I
The defendant argues that the jury‘s verdict is contrary to law because the evidence presentеd at trial by the State‘s witnesses was contradictory and based upon conjecture. The State argues that the defendant‘s contention is without merit. We agree.
In Indiana, a verdict will be disturbed as bеing contrary to law when there is an absence of substantial evidence on an essential element of an alleged crime, Spinks v. State, (1982) Ind., 437 N.E.2d 963, “or when the evidence is without conflict and leаds to but one reasonable conclusion and the verdict of the jury reached an opposite conclusion.” Beatty v. State, (1963) 244 Ind. 598, 600, 194 N.E.2d 727, 728.
The defendant‘s argument centers on the discrepanсy between the testimony of various witnesses. Mr. Gurniewicz was shot in the leg and testified that he walked back to Kurth Tire Center alone. Mr. Hilli-ard, on the other hand, stated that he accompanied Gurniewiеcz back to the shop. The other instances of contradiction concern who watched the defendant fire the gun and at what point during the pursuit did the defendant turn around and face his pursuеrs. None of these allegations or contradictions are substantial enough to disturb the verdict. The jury judges the credibility of the witnesses and decides which witness to believe. There was sub *330 stantial evidence to find the defendant guilty of robbery. We will not disturb the verdict on the basis of the defendant‘s allegatiоns.
II
The defendant argues that there is insufficient evidence to convict him of robbery, a class A felony. He specifically argues that his conviction is in error because at no time did he fire a shot or carry a loaded weapon throughout his participation in this incident.
On appеal, this Court will neither reweigh the evidence nor determine the credibility of the witnesses anad will consider only that- evidence most favorable to the State with all reasonable inferencеs drawn therefrom. We will not disturb a verdict if we find substantial evidence of probative value to supрort it. Laster v. State, (1983) Ind., 453 N.E.2d 1009. The defendant was charged with Robbery, a class A felony. The pertinent statute for Robbery reads as follows:
IG 85-42-5-1 Robbery
See. 1. A person who knowingly or intentionally takes property from another person or from the presence of another person:
(1) By using or threatening thе use of force on any person; or
(2) By putting any person in fear; commits robbery, a Class C felоny. However, the offense is a Class B felony if it is committed while armed with a deadly weapon, and а Class A felony if it results in either bodily injury or serious bodily injury to any person other than a defendant.
The evidence most favorable to the State shows the defendant entered the Kurth Tire Center, brandishing a shоtgun and demanding money. After taking money from the people in the building, the defendant fled. When pursued by his viе tims, the defendant turned and shot one man in the leg. The defendant claims he did not fire the shot but the witness’ tеstimony is to the contrary. The defendant
also argues that he was coerced into committing the robbery. He claims two men threatened to harm his grandmother if he did not comply. Under
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
GIVAN, C.J., and DeBRULER, HUNTER and PRENTICE, JJ., concur.