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:

THOMAS P. KELLER GREGORY F. ZOELLER

South Bend, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

RICHARD C. WEBSTER

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

ANDREW WRIGHT, JR., )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 71A03-1212-CR-522

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE ST. JOSEPH SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable Roland W. Chamblee, Jr., Judge

Cause No. 71D08-1204-MR-7

August 9, 2013

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

BRADFORD, Judge
2

Appellant-Defendant Andrew Wright, Jr., appeals his conviction for the murder of 

Michael Mumford. An autopsy of Mumford’s body revealed his cause of death to be

multiple blunt force injuries of the head with multiple sharp force injuries. Wright 

confessed to striking Mumford repeatedly in the head and face but argues that AppelleePlaintiff the State of Indiana failed to prove that he inflicted the sharp force injuries found 

on Mumford’s body. Because the forensic pathologist testified that Mumford’s blunt 

force injuries of the head were the primary cause of his death, with the sharp force 

injuries being secondary, we conclude that the State was not required to prove that 

Wright inflicted the latter. Wright also argues that the State presented insufficient 

evidence from which the jury could find that he intended to kill Mumford by beating him. 

We conclude that the jury could infer such intent from the severe and repetitive nature of 

the beating Wright inflicted. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

At approximately midnight on March 30, 2012, the South Bend Police Department 

received a telephone call alerting them to the presence of a body inside the apartment of 

Patricia James. Officers were dispatched to James’s apartment where, after knocking on 

the door for ten minutes with no response, they observed Wright, James’s nephew,

exiting through the apartment’s rear door. The officers approached Wright and told him 

they had received a tip about the presence of a dead body inside the home. Wright 

replied that James was safe in the apartment and that there was no dead body inside. 

After further knocking, James emerged from the apartment and also denied the existence 

of a dead body inside the home. James, however, refused to allow the officers to enter. 
3

Shortly thereafter, James’s son Willie Sauls arrived at the apartment and told the officers

that James had called him about the presence of a dead body inside. The officers 

eventually gained entry into the apartment, where they found Mumford’s body under a 

blanket on the living room floor. Blood covered Mumford’s head and face as well as the 

floor and nearby wall and furniture. Two knives and a spatula blade found near the body 

were also covered in blood.

During the investigation, Wright’s mother contacted police and reported that, on 

the evening in question, Wright came to her home with blood-covered sweatpants and 

shoes. Wright informed her that he had just come from James’s apartment but that he 

had not done anything wrong. Wright stayed at his mother’s home for several hours, 

during which he cleaned his shoes and left his bloody sweatpants in the basement to be 

washed. Wright then left, telling his mother that he was going back to James’s 

apartment. Police recovered Wright’s bloody sweatpants and his shoes from his mother’s 

home.

Wright was arrested, taken to the homicide office, advised of his Miranda1rights,

and interviewed by police. After being confronted with his bloody sweatpants, Wright 

confessed to striking Mumford with his fists seven or eight times in the head and face. 

Wright explained that Mumford collapsed to the floor and lay motionless, but that he

heard Mumford snore and figured he was “okay.” Tr. p. 168. An autopsy of Mumford’s 

body revealed multiple blunt force injuries to his head, which caused bleeding around the 

brain and fractures of the nose, skull, and neck. The autopsy also showed numerous 

 

1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
4

sharp force injuries to various parts of Mumford’s body, including a deep stab wound to 

the abdomen. The forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy determined

Mumford’s cause of death to be “multiple blunt force injuries of the head with multiple 

sharp force injuries.” Tr. p. 229.

The State charged Wright with murder, and a jury trial was held on October 8 and 

9, 2012. At trial, the forensic pathologist who performed Mumford’s autopsy testified 

that, “theoretically,” Mumford’s sharp force injuries alone could have caused his death. 

Tr. p. 228. But in this case, he explained, Mumford’s blunt force injuries were the 

primary cause, and his sharp force injuries were secondary. Ultimately, the jury found 

Wright guilty as charged, and the trial court sentenced him to sixty years of incarceration 

with five years suspended to probation.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

Wright argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his murder 

conviction. When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, we 

consider only the evidence and inferences favorable to the verdict. McHenry v. State, 

820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005). We do not reweigh the evidence nor do we judge the 

credibility of the witnesses. Jenkins v. State, 726 N.E.2d 268, 270 (Ind. 2000). If there is 

sufficient evidence of probative value to support the conclusion of the trier of fact, then 

the verdict will not be disturbed. Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799, 800 (Ind. 2002).

Wright claims that the State failed to prove that he inflicted the sharp force injuries 

found on Mumford’s body, asserting that both the blunt force and the sharp force injuries

contributed to Mumford’s death. “It is the rule of homicide law that a defendant is 
5

responsible for the death of the decedent if the injuries inflicted contribute either 

mediately or immediately to the death.” Ewing v. State, 719 N.E.2d 1221, 1225 (Ind. 

1999). Here, although the autopsy revealed that Mumford died from “blunt force injuries 

of the head with sharp force injuries,” Tr. p. 229, the forensic pathologist testified that the 

blunt force injuries were the primary cause of his death while the sharp force injuries

were secondary. Therefore, proof that Wright inflicted the sharp force injuries was not 

required to convict him of murder.

Wright also claims that the State failed to prove that he knowingly killed Mumford 

by beating him. “A person engages in conduct ‘knowingly’ if, when he engages in the 

conduct, he is aware of a high probability that he is doing so.” Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2 (a). 

To sustain a murder conviction, the evidence must show that the defendant was aware of 

the high probability that his actions would result in the death of another human being. 

Young v. State, 761 N.E.2d 387, 389 (Ind. 2002). An intent to kill sufficient to sustain a 

murder conviction can be established in several ways, including by inference from the 

nature of the attack and the circumstances surrounding the crime as well as the duration, 

brutality, and relative strengths of the defendant and victim. Nunn v. State, 601 N.E.2d 

334, 339 (Ind. 1992). “[W]here blows of magnitude are repeated, a jury could conclude 

that the defendant had an intent to kill.” Id.

Here, Wright confessed to striking Mumford in the head and face seven or eight 

times with his fists. The blows rendered Mumford unconscious and resulted in bleeding 

around his brain and fractures to his nose, skull, and neck. We conclude that the jury 

could infer the requisite intent from the severe and repetitive nature of the beating Wright 
6

inflicted. See Williams v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1139 (Ind. 2001); Nunn, 601 N.E.2d at 339; 

Shackelford v. State, 349 N.E.2d 150 (Ind. 1976); Stice v. State, 89 N.E.2d 915 (Ind. 

1950).

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

RILEY, J., and BROWN, J., concur.