Eddie G. Love v. State of Indiana
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: MICHAEL S. GREENE Elkhart, Indiana STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana MARA McCABE Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA EDDIE G. LOVE, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 20A03-0703-CR-160 APPEAL FROM THE ELKHART CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Terry Shewmaker, Judge Cause No. 20C01-0602-FB-12 October 30, 2007 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION CRONE, Judge Eddie G. Love appeals his two convictions for class B felony dealing in cocaine. We affirm. The relevant facts most favorable to the jury s verdict indicate that on February 6 and 7, 2006, a confidential informant supervised by Elkhart police conducted controlled buys of crack cocaine inside a home on Second Street. Each time, Love sold the informant $20 worth of cocaine. The informant had known Love for six or seven months and had had contact with him more than three, but less than 10 times prior to the controlled buys. Tr. at 61. The State charged Love with two counts of class B felony dealing in cocaine. On June 15, 2006, a jury found Love guilty as charged. Love challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. Our standard of review is well settled: When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, appellate courts must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. It is the fact-finder s role, not that of appellate courts, to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to support a conviction. ¦ Appellate courts affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146-47 (Ind. 2007) (citations, quotation marks, footnote, and alterations omitted) (emphasis in Drane). [T]he uncorroborated testimony of a single witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction on appeal. Seketa v. State, 817 N.E.2d 690, 696 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). 2 Love s argument is merely an invitation to assess the informant s credibility and reweigh the evidence in his favor. This we may not do. Therefore, we affirm. Affirmed. DARDEN, J., and MAY, J., concur. 3
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.
