Tom v. State , 261 Ind. 295 ( 1973 )

Dissenting Opinion

Givan, J.

I dissent, the sole item of evidence that prevents the majority affirming this conviction is the discrepancy in the date of the painting of the car and the date of theft. The trier of fact had this matter clearly before it. I see no justification for this Court to reweigh those facts and come to an opposite conclusion. The trier of fact was justified in either believing the witness was mistaken about the date the car was painted or in believing the witness was deliberately trying to confuse the issue as to appellant’s guilt.

Arterburn, C.J., concurs.

Note. — Reported in 302 N. E. 2d 494.