Aрpellant Darryl A. Taylor was convict ed after a jury trial of burglary, a class B felony, Ind. Code § 35-48-2-1 (Burns 1985 Repl.). The trial court sentenced him to twelve years imprisonment. On direct ap *291 peal, Taylor challenges the sufficiency of the еvidence supporting his conviction.
When reviewing such a claim, this Court will not reweigh the evidence nor judge the crеdibility of the witnesses. We will consider only that evidence, and all reasonable inferences therefrom, which supрort the verdict. The judgment will be affirmed if there is substantial evidence of probative value which would permit a reasonable trier of fact to find the existence of each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jones v. State (1985), Ind.,
In this case, the State had the burden of proving that Taylor broke and entered the burglarizеd home with the intent to commit theft, a felony. Ind.Code § 85-48-2-1; Ind.Code § 35-48-4-2. The intent to commit a felony may be inferred from the cirсumstances. Timmons v. State (1986), Ind.,
Thе evidence most favorable to the verdict shows that Denise Jacobsen and Bruce Keehn were in the upstаirs bedroom of their South Bend home about 11 p.m. on August 14, 1985. The first floor windows were open, but the screens were in plaсe. About five minutes after turning off the interior lights, Jacobsen heard a window slam shut in the living room downstairs. She heard the window raised again and a vase close to the window fall. Jacobsen woke Keehn, and they called police. Jacob-sen continued hearing noises downstairs, including whispers, footsteps and movement in the kitchen. She then heard sоmeone open the front door, which had been shut and locked before she retired to bed.
A patrol cаr arrived, and one officer observed Taylor in the doorway of the Ja-cobsen/Keehn home. As the officer approached the house, Taylor opened the front sereen door and stepped onto thе porch. The officer asked Taylor if he had called police, and the defendant responded affirmatively. Taylor said he did not live in the house but that his mother did. He noted that some people were asleep uрstairs. The officer saw Keehn in the upstairs window and motioned him to come down. By speaking to Keehn inside the homе, the officer learned of the prowler's presence and that Taylor did not reside there.
In the meantime, Tаylor walked off the porch and met another police officer in the yard. Taylor told that officer that he had been en route to his girlfriend's house when he heard someone in the house scream. Taylor told the officer that he did not know the exact address of his girlfriend but that she lived on LaSalle, the street on which the Jacobsen/Keehn home was located. The officer who had been talking to Keehn returned and informed Taylor that he was a susрect in a possible burglary.
Jacobsen entered her living room and found the contents of her purse strewn across the couch with approximately $60 missing. Keehn's watch and Salem cigarettes also were gone. One of the оfficers ordered Taylor to empty his pockets on the hood of the patrol car. Taylor compliеd and revealed a lighter, a pack of Salem cigarettes, a hair pick, keys, a wallet and a dollar bill. Thе officer patted his clothing. After Taylor returned the items to his pockets, the officers handcuffed him, placеd him in the back of a patrol car and drove to police offices for questioning. The officer driving the vehiсle noticed that Taylor was moving around in the back seat throughout the drive.
Upon arrival, Taylor gave a sworn statement in which he said he heard a scream coming from the house and then saw two men running from it. He said he ran to the dоor of the home, and a woman "came down." Jacobsen, the only woman in the home at the time of the burglary, testified that she did not venture from her upstairs bedroom until after police arrived. She also testified that she heard nо screams that evening.
After giving the statement, Taylor emptied his pockets again, but this time an additional $32 was found in his back left-hand pocket. The officer who drove Taylor to the police headquarters returned to his *292 car and checked the backseat. The officer found a $5 bill and a watch which Keehn later identified as his. The officer had emptied the rear seat before starting his shift, and Taylor had been its only occupant.
Taylor contends the evidence at most establishes his presence at the scene aud the mere opportunity to commit thе burglary. He argues that the watch was never connected to Taylor and therefore cannot be considered as evidence supporting the burglary conviction.
It is true that mere presence at the scene of a crime is insufficient to sustain a conviction for burglary. Richards v. State (1985), Ind.,
Moreоver, Taylor initially failed to reveal all of the cash in his pockets and carried cigarettes identical tо those missing from the burglarized home. Despite Taylor's contentions to the contrary, the jury could have reasonаbly inferred that the watch recovered from the police vehicle had been placed there by Taylor. See Gray v. State (1982), Ind.,
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. ©