![]() 1 that she obeyed Gregory's orders only because she was afraid.Īs to ISSUE TWO and ISSUE THREE, Gregory contends that the State failed to produce the corroborative identification testimony required to substantiate a guilty verdict where fingerprint evidence has been introduced. The State responds that there was sufficient evidence to sustain its burden on this element in the testimony of Cashier No. Should a new trial be granted Gregory because one of the jurors admitted that consideration was given by the jury to the fact that Gregory *133 did not take the stand in his own defense?Īs to ISSUE ONE, Gregory contends that the State failed to prove that anyone was actually placed "in fear," in that there was no evidence that any weapon of any kind was seen and the testimony of the State's witnesses was highly contradictory as to whether there was ample opportunity to resist the alleged illegal acts. Did the trial court err in overruling the defendant's motion for a directed verdict concerning the State's alleged failure to provide sufficient identification testimony to corroborate the fingerprint evidence presented at trial? Was the identification evidence sufficient to sustain the judgment of and conviction for robbery? an essential element of the crime of robbery? Did the State fail to present sufficient evidence to prove that anyone was put "in fear". Margaret Keifer, in the later trial is included in the record of this case. A partial transcript of the voir dire examination of the juror, Mrs. Subsequent to trial Gregory learned that one of the jurors admitted during voir dire examination in a later trial that the jurors did discuss the fact that he did not take the stand and held this fact against him. The jury found him guilty of robbery as charged, and the court sentenced him to imprisonment for a period of not less than ten nor more than twenty-five years, fining him $41.00 in addition as court costs. ![]() Gregory presented no evidence or witnesses at trial, but did move for a directed verdict at the close of State's case in chief. In addition, latent fingerprints were found at the scene of the crime on the handles of both safes and on the drawer handle of one safe, which were positively identified as those of Gregory. 2 being particularly positive in her identification. When she attempted to see why Gregory was in the office, one of the other two men poked something in her back and told her not to move, to stay quiet, and not to get excited.Īt trial both cashiers identified Gregory as the individual in the office at the time of the robbery, Cashier No. 2) was stationed at the third cash register from the office. While these events transpired, Alice Stanley (Cashier No. He then shoved open the office door and departed with his two companions. Frustrated in this attempt Gregory then "pulled the tills out and threw them on the floor" and deposited the money in his paper sack. Seeing that she could only unlock one of the two safes in the office, Gregory attempted to open the other safe by tugging on its handle. Once inside, Gregory stayed down low, picked up a paper sack and ordered the cashier to open and unlock everything. 1) was working the cash register next to the office, Gregory approached her and stated, "Don't touch any alarms, don't touch anything, open the office door and let me in or I will blow your head off." While making this threat, Gregory "had his arm in the pocket of his coat lying on the counter." Testifying that because she was afraid, Cashier No. On November 21, 1972, Gregory and two unidentified confederates entered Richard's Market Basket, Inc., located at 3701 East 38th Street, Indianapolis, about ten o'clock in the morning. The evidence and facts most favorable to the State are as follows: Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.ĭefendant-Appellant Eddie Dean Gregory (Gregory) appeals from a jury conviction of robbery, claiming failure to prove *132 that anyone was put "in fear", insufficient identity testimony to corroborate fingerprint evidence presented at trial, and jury misconduct in disregarding the court's instruction not to discuss the fact that Gregory chose not to take the stand in his own defense. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below). ![]() Eddie Dean GREGORY, Appellant (Defendant below),
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |