## Facts

- Cecil Moss Watson was charged and tried for armed robbery under an Indiana statute that applied only to a person “over sixteen years of age.”
- At trial, the State presented no direct testimony or other evidence establishing Watson’s age at the time of the offense.
- Watson did not testify, and no witness testified to his age.
- A State witness identified Watson in the courtroom as the robber.
- Over objection, the trial court instructed the jury that age was an essential element to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but that jurors could observe Watson and rely on their observation to decide whether he was over sixteen.
- The jury convicted Watson of armed robbery.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain an armed-robbery conviction when the State introduced no evidence of the “over sixteen years of age” element.
2. Whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury that it could determine the statutory age element solely from observing the defendant in court.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the State failed to prove an essential element of the offense: that Watson was over sixteen at the time of the robbery.
- The court held the challenged instruction was erroneous because it permitted the jury to supply the missing age element from observation alone, rather than from evidence.

## Legal Principles

- When a criminal statute expressly makes the offender’s age part of the definition of the offense, age is an essential element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
- A conviction cannot stand where the record contains no evidence on an essential element; this is a failure of proof, not merely weak evidence.
- A jury may not be instructed to determine an essential statutory element, such as age, solely by observing the defendant’s appearance in court; observation cannot substitute for proof offered by the State.

## Conclusion

Because the armed-robbery statute required proof that the defendant was over sixteen and the State offered no evidence of that element, the conviction was unsupported by sufficient evidence, and the jury instruction allowing age to be found from observation alone was improper; the judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.


Watson v. State, 140 N.E.2d 109 (Ind. 1957)