Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
PHILIP R. SKODINSKI GREGORY F. ZOELLER
South Bend, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
JAMES B. MARTIN
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
May 29 2014, 10:21 am
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
DENNIS KNIGHT, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 71A03-1401-CR-40
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE ST. JOSEPH SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Jerome Frese, Judge
Cause No. 71D03-1109-FB-147
May 29, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
CRONE, Judge
Case Summary
Dennis Knight challenges the sufficiency of evidence supporting his conviction for
class B felony robbery. Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
Around 9:30 p.m. on August 15, 2011, several employees of a South Bend fast food
restaurant were cleaning up the otherwise empty restaurant when a man later identified as
Knight approached the counter and ordered a sandwich. The assistant manager (“cashier”)
took his order, quoted him a price, and accepted his payment. When she opened the cash
drawer, Knight said, “I’ll take the rest of that; I’m not kidding; I’ll f**k’n blow your head
off.” Tr. at 35. She looked directly at Knight’s face, and the two established eye contact.
She briefly looked down and noticed that he was pointing a gun at her. Knight reached over
the counter, grabbed $200 from the cash drawer, put it in a bag, and fled. The cashier phoned
911. When police arrived, the cashier described the robber’s clothing, height, build, age,
race, and complexion. See Tr. at 36 (“He looked like he had either acne marks or stubble or
both.”). A subsequent check of the restaurant’s surveillance tape verified the accuracy of her
description.
A week later, the cashier was inside a nearby convenience store and noticed a photo
on the wall. She immediately recognized the man in the photo as a younger version of the
robber and brought it to the attention of the convenience store clerk. A few days later, the
cashier met with police and identified Knight from a photo array consisting of six
photographs of persons of similar age, ethnicity, and complexion.
2
The State charged Knight with class B felony robbery with a deadly weapon.1 Knight
filed a motion to suppress identification testimony, which the trial court denied. At trial, the
cashier identified Knight as the robber both in person and by photo array. The jury convicted
Knight as charged, and he now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
Knight contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. When
reviewing a sufficiency claim, we neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility.
Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). Rather, we consider only the evidence and
reasonable inferences most favorable to the verdict and will affirm the conviction “unless no
reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable
doubt.” Id. To be sufficient, the evidence need not overcome every reasonable hypothesis of
innocence. Id. A conviction can be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of a single
witness, even where that witness is the victim. Bailey v. State, 979 N.E.2d 133, 135 (Ind.
2012).
Knight claims that the State failed to establish his identity as the robber. Specifically,
he asserts that the cashier misidentified him after seeing his photo on the wall at a nearby
convenience store. In other words, he maintains that she remembered his face not from the
robbery but from the convenience store photo. When evaluating the likelihood of a
misidentification, the trial court considers the following factors: (1) the witness’s
1
The instant charge was Count III of a five-count information against Knight, with all five counts
being for different alleged acts of class B felony robbery. Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1. Count III was severed and
tried separately.
3
opportunity to view the robber at the time of the crime; (2) the witness’s degree of attention;
(3) the accuracy of the witness’s prior description of the robber; and (4) the level of certainty
demonstrated by the witness. Williams v. State, 774 N.E.2d 889, 890 (Ind. 2002).
During the robbery, the cashier stood two feet from Knight. She had an unobstructed
view of him while she took his order, accepted his payment, and attempted to give him his
change. When he threatened her and demanded the cash in the drawer, she maintained eye
contact with him, except to notice that he had a gun pointed at her. When police arrived, the
cashier described with specificity her robber’s clothing, height, build, age, skin color, and
facial features. The surveillance tape corroborated her description. All of this occurred
before she ever saw Knight’s face on the convenience store wall.
A week later, when the cashier was inside the nearby convenience store and saw
Knight’s photo on the wall, she immediately recognized him as a younger version of the man
who had robbed her at gunpoint. She twice identified Knight again, in a photo array and then
in court.
In sum, the cashier observed Knight at close proximity, and her attention was fixed on
him and his weapon. She identified him with certainty and described him specifically and
accurately. His arguments concerning her emotions as a victim and the influence of the
convenience store photo amount to invitations to reweigh evidence and assess witness
credibility, which we may not do. The evidence is sufficient to support Knight’s conviction.
Accordingly, we affirm.
4
Affirmed.
BAKER, J., and BARNES, J., concur.
5