Daniel Scott Kring v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MEMORANDUM DECISION 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. FILED Dec 21 2017, 11:10 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Donald J. Berger Law Office of Donald J. Berger South Bend, Indiana Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General of Indiana Monika Prekopa Talbot Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Daniel Scott Kring, December 21, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 71A05-1706-CR-1364 v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior Court The Honorable John M. Marnocha, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 71D02-1701-F5-000006 Vaidik, Chief Judge. [1] Daniel Kring appeals his conviction for the robbery of a Speedway store in South Bend. He does not dispute that the store was robbed; he contends only Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1706-CR-1364 | December 21, 2017 Page 1 of 2 that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the robbery. We disagree. The State’s evidence was easily sufficient to identify Kring as the robber. Most notably, Kring’s codefendant and getaway driver, Charles Hirsch, testified that Kring committed the robbery, and the two women who were working in the store at the time of the robbery took the stand and specifically identified Kring as the robber. Kring contends that Hirsch should not be believed because he was testifying pursuant to a plea agreement; he also points out that one of the workers testified that the robber’s jacket had a skull or an alien on the back, whereas Kring’s jacket had Al Pacino as Scarface on the back. Setting aside the fact that Kring does not even mention the second worker’s testimony, these arguments go to the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of evidence. Such matters are to be determined by the fact-finder (here, a jury), not this Court. See Leonard v. State, 80 N.E.3d 878, 882 (Ind. 2017). [2] Affirmed. May, J., and Altice, J. concur. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1706-CR-1364 | December 21, 2017 Page 2 of 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
