Hall v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals

Hall v. State

328 N.E.2d 226, 164 Ind. App. 234, 1975 Ind. App. LEXIS 1136

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 19, 1975

DocketNo. 2-174A51

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 328 N.E.2d 226 (Hall 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

Hall v. State, 328 N.E.2d 226, 164 Ind. App. 234, 1975 Ind. App. LEXIS 1136 (Ind. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

White, J.

Appellant Hall was convicted after jury trial of having burglarized a grocery store. His argument in this appeal is that inasmuch as the undisputed evidence shows that he never entered the store he cannot be convicted of a crime that requires breaking and entering.

The undisputed evidence also shows that three persons participated in the burglary, that it was Hall’s idea, that Hall attempted to enter the store but was too large to fit through the opening, that he stood outside the opening and told the smaller companion who did go inside how to open the safe, that he took possession of the money as it was passed out through the opening, that he drove the three participants and the stolen money from the store, and that he divided the stolen money equally between the three participants.

Under the accessory statute, IC 1971, 35-1-29-1, Ind. Ann. Stat. §9-102 (Burns 1956 Repl.), a person who aids or abets the breaking and entering can be convicted as a principal whether or not be himself enters. Smithhart v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 533, 270 N.E.2d 740; Maynard v. State (1973), 157 Ind. App. 573, 301 N.E.2d 200; Tinsley v. State (1974), 260 [235]*235Ind. 577, 298 N.E.2d 429. The trial court correctly instructed the jury on that statute.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

NOTE.—Reported at 328 N.E.2d 226.

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

White, J.

Appellant Hall was convicted after jury trial of having burglarized a grocery store. His argument in this appeal is that inasmuch as the undisputed evidence shows that he never entered the store he cannot be convicted of a crime that requires breaking and entering.

The undisputed evidence also shows that three persons participated in the burglary, that it was Hall’s idea, that Hall attempted to enter the store but was too large to fit through the opening, that he stood outside the opening and told the smaller companion who did go inside how to open the safe, that he took possession of the money as it was passed out through the opening, that he drove the three participants and the stolen money from the store, and that he divided the stolen money equally between the three participants.

Under the accessory statute, IC 1971, 35-1-29-1, Ind. Ann. Stat. §9-102 (Burns 1956 Repl.), a person who aids or abets the breaking and entering can be convicted as a principal whether or not be himself enters. Smithhart v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 533, 270 N.E.2d 740; Maynard v. State (1973), 157 Ind. App. 573, 301 N.E.2d 200; Tinsley v. State (1974), 260 [235]*235Ind. 577, 298 N.E.2d 429. The trial court correctly instructed the jury on that statute.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

NOTE.—Reported at 328 N.E.2d 226.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

328 N.E.2d 226, 164 Ind. App. 234, 1975 Ind. App. LEXIS 1136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-state-indctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack