Gertchen v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals

Gertchen v. State

304 N.E.2d 335, 158 Ind. App. 691, 1973 Ind. App. LEXIS 965

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 17, 1973

Docket2-1172A103

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 304 N.E.2d 335 (Gertchen v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gertchen v. State, 304 N.E.2d 335, 158 Ind. App. 691, 1973 Ind. App. LEXIS 965 (Ind. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

White,

J.—Defendants Gertchen and Hill were tried to a jury and found guilty of second degree burglary and safe burglary. Their appeal is premised entirely on the contention that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence because it rests on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice who is an admitted and convicted narcotics user whose testimony, in some details, conflicts with the testimony of the proprietor of the burglarized store.

The cases are almost legion in which the Supreme Court of Indiana has reiterated the substance of what it said over a century ago in Stocking v. State (1855), 7 Ind. 326, 330:

“It is objected to the sufficiency of the evidence, that on material points there was only the testimony of Langley, an accomplice, whose character was infamous. It is very true that the evidence of persons standing in such a relation to each other, should be carefully scrutinized by the Court and jury. Yet to exclude it altogether, would often exclude the only means of disclosing guilt. ... It may well be doubted, however, whether Langley was an accomplice. Even if he were, and if he stood alone, unsupported by any corroborating testimony, the jury might convict on his evidence.”

Among the cases which restate the substance of “[t]he rule that convictions may be based on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice” (Green v. State (1960), 241 Ind. 96, 102, *693 168 N.E.2d 345) are: Johnson v. State (1879), 65 Ind. 269; Brewster v. State (1917), 186 Ind. 369, 115 N.E. 54; Ingram v. State (1951), 230 Ind. 25, 99 N.E.2d 410; Walker v. State (1934), 206 Ind. 232, 189 N.E. 127; Pleak v. State (1929), 201 Ind. 274, 167 N.E. 524; Tungate v. State (1958), 238 Ind. 48, 147 N.E.2d 232; Smith v. State (1961), 241 Ind. 601, 174 N.E.2d 47; Aikins v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 671, 271 N.E.2d 418.

No error being shown, the judgment is affirmed.

Buchanan, P.J., and Sullivan, J., concur.

Note.—Reported at 304 N.E.2d 335.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

White,

J.—Defendants Gertchen and Hill were tried to a jury and found guilty of second degree burglary and safe burglary. Their appeal is premised entirely on the contention that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence because it rests on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice who is an admitted and convicted narcotics user whose testimony, in some details, conflicts with the testimony of the proprietor of the burglarized store.

The cases are almost legion in which the Supreme Court of Indiana has reiterated the substance of what it said over a century ago in Stocking v. State (1855), 7 Ind. 326, 330:

“It is objected to the sufficiency of the evidence, that on material points there was only the testimony of Langley, an accomplice, whose character was infamous. It is very true that the evidence of persons standing in such a relation to each other, should be carefully scrutinized by the Court and jury. Yet to exclude it altogether, would often exclude the only means of disclosing guilt. ... It may well be doubted, however, whether Langley was an accomplice. Even if he were, and if he stood alone, unsupported by any corroborating testimony, the jury might convict on his evidence.”

Among the cases which restate the substance of “[t]he rule that convictions may be based on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice” (Green v. State (1960), 241 Ind. 96, 102, *693 168 N.E.2d 345) are: Johnson v. State (1879), 65 Ind. 269; Brewster v. State (1917), 186 Ind. 369, 115 N.E. 54; Ingram v. State (1951), 230 Ind. 25, 99 N.E.2d 410; Walker v. State (1934), 206 Ind. 232, 189 N.E. 127; Pleak v. State (1929), 201 Ind. 274, 167 N.E. 524; Tungate v. State (1958), 238 Ind. 48, 147 N.E.2d 232; Smith v. State (1961), 241 Ind. 601, 174 N.E.2d 47; Aikins v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 671, 271 N.E.2d 418.

No error being shown, the judgment is affirmed.

Buchanan, P.J., and Sullivan, J., concur.

Note.—Reported at 304 N.E.2d 335.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 N.E.2d 335, 158 Ind. App. 691, 1973 Ind. App. LEXIS 965, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gertchen-v-state-indctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack