TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Brewer v. State

James Brewer v. State of Indiana

Brewer v. State, 369 N.E.2d 424 (Ind. 1977)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 21, 1977
Docket
No. 677S389
Judges
Hunter
Citations
369 N.E.2d 424267 Ind. 2381977 Ind. LEXIS 491

Opinion — Hunter

Hunter, J.

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 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. 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 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 *240 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 Pivarník, JJ., concur.

Note. — Reported at 369 N.E.2d 424 .

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1980: 11984: 31985: 11986: 12020: 119802026peak 1984 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hightower v. State490 N.E.2d 1111 (Ind. 1986)
  2. Baker v. State402 N.E.2d 951 (Ind. 1980)
  3. Maul v. State467 N.E.2d 1197 (Ind. 1984)
  4. Wilson v. State468 N.E.2d 1375 (Ind. 1984)
  5. Moore v. State485 N.E.2d 62 (Ind. 1985)
  6. Holliness v. State467 N.E.2d 4 (Ind. 1984)

Most recent

  1. Kitwana Khamisi-El v. United StatesNo. 19-5584 (6th Cir. Jan. 23, 2020)
  2. Hightower v. State490 N.E.2d 1111 (Ind. 1986)
  3. Moore v. State485 N.E.2d 62 (Ind. 1985)
  4. Wilson v. State468 N.E.2d 1375 (Ind. 1984)
  5. Maul v. State467 N.E.2d 1197 (Ind. 1984)
  6. Holliness v. State467 N.E.2d 4 (Ind. 1984)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Gaddis v. State, 251 N.E.2d 658 (Ind. 1969) 126
Daniels v. State, 346 N.E.2d 566 (Ind. 1976) 29
Roberts v. State, 355 N.E.2d 243 (Ind. 1976) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list