## Facts

- Patrick Wash entered Alyse LaMonte’s apartment while she was away and hid in her bedroom closet.
- When LaMonte returned and entered the bedroom, Wash jumped out, displayed a knife, and placed it against her back.
- Wash demanded that LaMonte remove her clothes; during the assault he cut her breast with the knife.
- LaMonte fled to a neighbor’s apartment; from the neighbor’s doorway she saw Wash leave her apartment carrying her purse, which had been on the bed during the attack.
- LaMonte returned to her apartment for the first time about one week after the attack and found a red-and-blue stocking cap in the bedroom closet that she said Wash wore during the robbery.
- LaMonte notified police about the cap immediately, but police did not retrieve it for nearly two weeks.
- At trial, the State offered the stocking cap (State’s Exhibit 1). LaMonte identified it, and Wash objected that the cap could have been tampered with or substituted during the time it remained in the apartment and later while in police custody.
- A jury convicted Wash of robbery while armed with a deadly weapon. The trial court sentenced him to ten years and denied his motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for robbery while armed with a deadly weapon, including proof that the purse was taken “from the person or presence” of the victim and that the taking was accomplished by force or threat of force.
2. Whether the trial court erred by admitting State’s Exhibit 1 (the stocking cap), given Wash’s chain-of-custody and possible-tampering objections (including both the period before police seized it and the period after seizure).
3. Whether the trial court erred by permitting rebuttal testimony from a witness who had already testified during the State’s case-in-chief.
4. Whether the trial court erred by denying Wash’s motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed the conviction and the denial of a new trial.
- The evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that the purse was taken from LaMonte’s “presence,” even though she had fled, because Wash’s violence and intimidation caused her to relinquish control and the taking followed as part of the same episode.
- The evidence was sufficient that the taking was accomplished by force or threat of force, given the knife attack and the sequence of events leading to Wash leaving with the purse.
- The stocking cap was properly admitted. The State’s foundation provided reasonable assurance of the exhibit’s identity and unchanged condition; concerns about delay, access, or substitution were for the jury to weigh absent proof of actual tampering.
- Allowing the State to recall a witness in rebuttal was within the trial court’s discretion over the order of proof, and Wash showed no reversible prejudice.
- The proffered newly discovered evidence did not satisfy Indiana’s requirements for a new trial, including due diligence and a probability of a different result.

## Legal Principles

- On sufficiency review, the appellate court considers only the evidence favorable to the verdict and reasonable inferences; it does not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility.
- For robbery, property is taken from the victim’s “presence” when the victim’s possession or control is so immediate that violence or intimidation is needed to sever it; forced flight does not defeat the presence element when the victim’s loss of control results from the defendant’s violence or threats.
- A taking that follows immediately from an assault or intimidation can satisfy the “by force or threat of force” element when the events form a single, continuous occurrence.
- Physical evidence is admissible when the State provides reasonable assurance that the item offered is what it is claimed to be and is in substantially the same condition; the State need not eliminate every remote possibility of tampering, and minor gaps generally affect weight rather than admissibility.
- The trial court has broad discretion to control the order of proof, including permitting rebuttal testimony and recalling witnesses; reversal requires a clear abuse of discretion and resulting prejudice.
- Newly discovered evidence warrants a new trial only when it was discovered after trial despite due diligence, is material and not merely cumulative or impeaching, and would probably produce a different result at retrial.

## Conclusion

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed Wash’s armed-robbery conviction and ten-year sentence, holding that the victim’s purse was taken from her presence because her loss of control was caused by Wash’s knife violence and intimidation, that the stocking cap was admissible on a showing of reasonable assurance of identity and condition despite delays and alleged chain-of-custody gaps, that recalling a witness for rebuttal was within the trial court’s control of proof, and that Wash’s newly discovered evidence did not justify a new trial.


Wash v. State, 408 N.E.2d 634 (1980)