ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. Miller Karen M. Freeman-Wilson
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Arthur Thaddeus Perry
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
JEFF DAVIS, )
)
Appellant (Defendant Below), )
)
v. ) 42S00-0003-CR-187
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee (Plaintiff Below). )
APPEAL FROM THE KNOX SUPERIOR COURT 1
The Honorable W. Timothy Crowley
Cause No. 42D01-9901-CF-002
March 6, 2001
SHEPARD, Chief Justice.
Appellant Jeff Davis appeals his conviction for felony murder by
asserting that the State’s evidence was insufficient to support the element
of breaking necessary for the predicate offense of burglary. He makes out
a respectable case, but at the end of the day we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
On December 16, 1998, Beth Geyer lured Floyd Wampler away from his
home by asking him to give her car battery a jump. (R. at 586, 591, 632.)
Wampler was known to keep a large amount of cash on him, (R. at 395-96, 410-
11, 588, 623), and several guns in his home, (R. at 396, 417-18, 690),
located on a farm in Knox County, (R. at 423, 548).
After cutting the phone line, Davis and Geyer’s son Jesse Ennsmann
entered the home through the same garage door from which Wampler exited.
(R. at 592, 597-98.) They carried a flashlight, a bat, and duct tape to
“knock[] the man out and tap[e] him up.” (R. at 586-87, 668.)
Davis and Ennsmann looked around the house for money. (R. at 598.)
They ended their search abruptly, after Ennsmann noticed from a window that
Wampler was returning. (R. at 601-02.) They departed the home carrying
three guns they found, but left behind their flashlight and duct tape. (R.
at 602, 668-69.) Wampler later reported the incident and had his phone
line repaired. (R. at 729, 741-44.)
Because of this December burglary, Graydon June Goodwin was house-
sitting Wampler’s home on January 7, 1999, while Wampler was in the
hospital recovering from a stroke. (R. at 364, 405, 688.) Two neighbors,
Eddie Westfall and Ed Schrieffer, knew that Goodwin was now taking care of
Wampler’s place and decided to go check on Goodwin because “no one had
heard from [him] and they were concerned about him.” (R. at 364.)
Westfall called Wampler’s nephew, Mark Wampler, and asked that he meet them
at the farm. (R. at 392, 403-05.)
After arriving at Wampler’s farm, Westfall and Schrieffer went to the
side entrance of the house where they “always use to go in,” but found out
that the door was locked. (R. at 389-90.) Westfall shined a flashlight in
the window and saw Goodwin lying on the floor. (R. at 390.) He walked to
the front door and noticed it was ajar. (Id.) He entered the home, looked
at Goodwin and then walked back outside. (Id.)
Westfall tried to use a phone in the barn, but the line was dead. (R.
at 391.) He entered the home again in order to determine if Goodwin was
alive, but found no pulse. (R. at 392.) Westfall and Schrieffer drove to
a neighbor’s home, asked the neighbor to contact the police, and then
returned to Wampler’s home, where Mark later met them. (R. at 392, 407.)
After Westfall told Mark that they found Goodwin’s body in the house,
Mark contacted Dave Anderson, a crime scene technician with the Indiana
State Police, who instructed him to remain in his truck. (R. at 408, 427,
432.) On his way to the home, Anderson called the State Police post. (R.
at 433.) Anderson arrived at the home, spoke to Mark and Westfall and then
entered the house only to confirm that Goodwin was deceased. (R. at 433-
35.) Later, detectives and more police officers arrived. (R. at 435, 701-
02, 772-73.)
Detective Greg Winkler of the Indiana State Police was one of those
who arrived. (R. at 700-01.) He did not observe any signs of forced entry
in any of the doors or windows. (R. at 730-31.) He noticed that a few
drawers were open in the kitchen; they appeared to have been searched. (R.
at 732.) He did not see any sign of a struggle in the home other than how
some of the couch cushions were tossed on the couch. (R. at 733.)
The forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy determined that
Goodwin’s death resulted from blood loss caused by damage from a gunshot
wound to the facial regions of the head. (R. at 338, 351.) The
pathologist also concluded that the manner of death was homicide. (R. at
339, 351-52.)
A few days later, Geyer made an anonymous phone call to the police
informing them of a conversation that she heard between Davis and Jack
Wadsworth regarding the night of Goodwin’s death. (R. at 644-46, 703.)
Geyer said that Davis and Wadsworth discussed “going and finishing a job
and . . . getting lots of money and stuff . . . .” (R. at 644.)
Subsequently Geyer, Ennsmann and Davis admitted their involvement with the
December burglary. (R. at 639, 648-49, 592-602, 723, State’s Exh. 138.)
The State charged Davis with burglary and theft for his involvement
regarding the events on December 16, 1998. It also charged felony murder,
burglary and theft in relation to the events that occurred on January 7,
1999. The trial court returned guilty verdicts on all counts. The court
merged the burglary and theft counts into the felony murder count with a
sentence of fifty-five years. It also sentenced Davis to fifteen years for
the December 16th burglary and a concurrent term of three years for the
December 16th theft. The net result was seventy years.
Sufficiency of the Evidence
Davis claims that the evidence presented by the State was insufficient
to convict him of burglary or felony murder in connection with the January
death of Goodwin. Specifically, he contends the State failed to prove a
“breaking,” one of the necessary elements for the crime of burglary.
When reviewing convictions for sufficiency of the evidence, we look to
the evidence most favorable to the verdict and all of the reasonable
inferences that evidence provides. Baker v. State, 273 Ind. 64, 402 N.E.2d
951 (1980). We do not reweigh the evidence or determine the credibility of
witnesses. In addressing an insufficiency claim, we determine whether
there was substantial probative evidence to support the judgment. Id. If
a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt, we will affirm the decision of the trial court. Case v.
State, 458 N.E.2d 223 (Ind. 1984).
To prove burglary as charged, the evidence must show that Davis did
knowingly break and enter into Wampler’s home with an intent to commit a
felony in it (in this case, theft). See Ind. Code Ann. § 35-43-2-1 (West
1998). The element of breaking is satisfied by showing that even the
slightest force was used to gain unauthorized entry. Trice v. State, 490
N.E.2d 757 (Ind. 1986). Opening an unlocked door or pushing a door that is
slightly ajar constitutes a breaking. Utley v. State, 589 N.E.2d 232 (Ind.
1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1058 (1993). The occurrence of a breaking
may be proven entirely by circumstantial evidence. McCovens v. State, 539
N.E.2d 26 (Ind. 1989).
Davis asserts that the State did not present “testimony nor direct
evidence of a breaking.” (Appellant’s Br. at 7.) He argues that the
evidence is sufficient only to conclude that he and Wadsworth “scheme[d] to
get Goodwin to open an outer door to the house and allow one of them to
sneak in without having to break in.” (Appellant’s Br. at 8.)
Our inquiry on appeal is not whether a trier of fact may have accepted
the version of events proposed by Davis. Rather, we determine whether the
verdict is supported by an inference reasonably drawn from the evidence
presented. We conclude that it was.
We have encountered other cases in which there was no overt physical
sign of a forced entry. In Utley, for example, a woman and her child were
found murdered in their home, on the floor of the bedroom. 589 N.E.2d at
241. The victim’s husband testified that the doors to the home remained
locked and were locked when he left the home on the day of the murder. Id.
He also testified that the victim would not open the door for a stranger.
Id. When the victim’s body was found, the rear door of the home was
unlocked. Id. We found this evidence sufficient, saying, “From this
testimony one could infer that force was used to gain entry without the
victim’s permission.” Id.
Similarly, in this case the State presented circumstantial evidence
that Goodwin would not have permitted Davis to enter Wampler’s home. The
evidence revealed that the home was burglarized on December 16, 1998, after
a stranger lured Wampler away from his home. Wampler reported the incident
to the police and informed his friend Goodwin. In his statement, Davis
admitted that he planned and participated in the first burglary.
On January 7, 1999, while Wampler was in the hospital, Goodwin stayed
at Wampler’s home in order to guard against another burglary attempt. His
stepdaughter testified that Goodwin planned to sleep on the couch with a
gun next to him. (R. at 659, 673.) Goodwin was prepared to confront any
stranger who got into the house. Davis and Wadsworth were strangers to
Goodwin.
Goodwin’s body was found, with a flashlight under his arm, near the
couch. (R. at 441.) The front door of the room was ajar and the door to
the garage was locked. Testimony revealed that when Goodwin let visitors
into Wampler’s home, he let them in through the door near the garage. (R.
at 682.)
Davis admitted in his statement that he was in Wampler’s home when his
friend Wadsworth shot Goodwin in the head. Davis also admitted that after
Goodwin was shot, he left the home and “came back a few times.” (R. at
723, State’s Exh. 138.)
As in Utley, this evidence allowed a reasonable inference that Davis’
entry was unauthorized. Moreover, we think it implausible that a man
occupying a home solely to guard against entry of potential burglars would
willingly let two strangers in the front door.
Consequently, the evidence was sufficient to convict Davis of
burglary. Because Davis’ murder charge was based upon the commission of
burglary and accomplice liability for the death of Goodwin, the evidence
was also sufficient to convict him of felony murder.[1]
Conclusion
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Dickson, Sullivan, Boehm, and Rucker, JJ., concur.
-----------------------
[1] Indiana Code § 35-42-1-1(2) states, “A person who kills another human
being while committing or attempting to commit . . . burglary . . . commits
murder, a felony.”