O'Hara v. State

Defendant-appellant O’Hara appeals his conviction of Second Degree Burglary,1 claiming that it was not *13supported by sufficient evidence and that certain evidence was improperly admitted.

We affirm.

The constraints upon this Court’s review of the sufficiency of evidence are summarized by the following passage from Napier v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 614, 298 N.E.2d 427, 427-428:

“When the sufficiency of evidence is raised on appeal, this Court will neither weigh the evidence nor resolve questions concerning the credibility of witnesses. Only that evidence most favorable to the State will be…