Thompson v. State

24 Citing cases

  1. Hines v. State

    30 N.E.3d 1216 (Ind. 2015)   Cited 76 times
    Considering sexual battery a "violent crime[]," although not classified as such by our legislature

    For example, in Eddy v. State, we interpreted the statutory requirement that a homicide-robbery transaction be continuous to encompass a transaction where all the statutory elements of the robbery had been completed before the commission of the homicide:Krempetz v. State, 872 N.E.2d 605, 610–11 (Ind.2007) ; Jackson v. State, 597 N.E.2d 950, 960 (Ind.1992) ; Mahone v. State, 541 N.E.2d 278, 280 (Ind.1989) ; Eddy v. State, 496 N.E.2d 24, 27–28 (Ind.1986) ; Mauricio v. State, 476 N.E.2d 88, 92 (Ind.1985) ; Thompson v. State, 441 N.E.2d 192, 194 (Ind.1982) ; Stroud v. State, 272 Ind. 12, 14, 395 N.E.2d 770, 771 (1979) ; see also Young v. State, 725 N.E.2d 78, 81 (Ind.2000) (discussing when asportation occurred in the context of robbery).Bartlett v. State, 711 N.E.2d 497, 500 (Ind.1999) Haggard v. State, 445 N.E.2d 969, 972 (Ind.1983), holding modified on other grounds, Bailey v. State, 472 N.E.2d 1260 (Ind.1985).

  2. McCann v. State

    466 N.E.2d 421 (Ind. 1984)   Cited 25 times

    Even though the evidence is circumstantial, the trier of fact may draw reasonable inferences from facts established by the evidence, and a guilty verdict may be based upon circumstantial evidence. Thompson v. State, (1982) Ind., 441 N.E.2d 192, 194; Zickefoose v. State, (1979) 270 Ind. 618, 621, 388 N.E.2d 507, 509. This Court need not find that the circumstantial evidence is adequate to overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence but only that an inference may reasonably be drawn therefrom which supports the verdict.

  3. McAfee v. State

    459 N.E.2d 1186 (Ind. 1984)   Cited 14 times

    We will neither weigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. We consider only that evidence most favorable to the state, together with all reasonable and logical inferences to be drawn therefrom. If there exists substantial evidence of probative value to support the conclusion of the trier of fact, the verdict will not be overturned. Thompson v. State, (1982) Ind., 441 N.E.2d 192; Rowan v. State, (1982) Ind., 431 N.E.2d 805. Furthermore, "this Court does not have to find that circumstantial evidence is adequate to overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence but only that an inference may reasonably be drawn therefrom which supports the finding of the jury." Thompson v. State, 441 N.E.2d at 193.

  4. Thompson v. State

    796 N.E.2d 834 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that the defendant's evidence did not qualify as "newly discovered evidence"

    Merriweather testified at trial to all of the above events pursuant to a plea agreement.Thompson v. State, 441 N.E.2d 192-193 (Ind. 1982). Prior to Thompson's trial, Gary Burris had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death.

  5. Krempetz v. State

    872 N.E.2d 605 (Ind. 2007)   Cited 22 times
    Expressing outrage over execution-style killing committed against a defenseless victim

    And a homicide and robbery are deemed to be one continuous transaction when they are closely connected in time, place, and continuity of action. Thompson v. State, 441 N.E.2d 192, 194 (Ind. 1982). In this case it is true that the victim's money was first taken from her at the site of the ATM.

  6. Young v. State

    725 N.E.2d 78 (Ind. 2000)   Cited 25 times
    Holding whether a bodily injury is "serious" is a "a matter of degree and therefore a question reserved for the factfinder"

    See Coleman, 653 N.E.2d at 482; Eddy, 496 N.E.2d at 28. In short, when the robbery and the violence are so closely connected in point of time, place, and continuity of action, they constitute one continuous scheme or transaction. Thompson v. State, 441 N.E.2d 192 (Ind. 1982); Stroud v. State, 272 Ind. 12, 395 N.E.2d 770 (1979). Such is the case here.

  7. Jackson v. State

    597 N.E.2d 950 (Ind. 1992)   Cited 52 times
    Holding that "[I]f a suspect's request for counsel is perceived to be inherently ambiguous, or equivocal in light of the preceding events, any further questioning should be narrowly limited to clarifying whether the suspect actually wished to have counsel present." (quoting Sleek, 499 N.E.2d at 754)

    When a killing and a robbery are so closely connected in time, place, and continuity of action as to constitute one continuous transaction, a jury is justified in finding that the perpetrator is guilty of felony murder even if the killing actually occurred before the robbery. See id. at 280; Thompson v. State (1982), Ind., 441 N.E.2d 192, 194. The evidence in this case shows that Michelle Seagraves was kidnapped and murdered so that Kennedy and Jackson could use her car as transportation to and from the robbery of the Peoples Bank in Moores Hill. Jackson told Detective Sorrell that they robbed the bank "a few minutes" after Seagraves was killed.

  8. Benirschke v. State

    577 N.E.2d 576 (Ind. 1991)   Cited 18 times
    Applying Witt

    Benirschke claims that because he took a checkbook and money from one of the victims after he had shot them, the evidence was insufficient to show the killing was perpetrated in the course of a robbery. In Thompson v. State (1982), Ind., 441 N.E.2d 192, the claim was made that a robbery was completed before a homicide and thus could not have been part of the homicide so as to constitute felony murder. This Court noted in that case that the shooting occurred before any asportation of property and further noted that where the homicide and robbery are closely connected in time, place and continuity of action, they are deemed part of one continuous transaction.

  9. Staton v. State

    524 N.E.2d 6 (Ind. 1988)   Cited 6 times
    Finding sufficient evidence of asportation where robber rummaged through victim's purse and dumped out contents

    This Court has clearly held that before a robbery or other theft-related crime is complete there must be an asportation of the property. Thompson v. State (1982), Ind., 441 N.E.2d 192. In Neal v. State (1938), 214 Ind. 328, 341, 14 N.E.2d 590, 596, we quoted the well recognized rule:

  10. King v. State

    508 N.E.2d 1259 (Ind. 1987)   Cited 20 times

    While no one actually witnessed Anderson's murder, strong circumstantial evidence supports the conclusion that appellant was the perpetrator and a guilty verdict may be based on circumstantial evidence. McAfee v. State (1984), Ind., 459 N.E.2d 1186; Thompson v. State (1982), Ind., 441 N.E.2d 192. Here, two of Anderson's children heard the house being broken into, observed appellant enter the house and chase their mother, heard him threaten to harm her, and blood was found near the back door of the house.