Opinion ID: 853290
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: The defendant asserts that the State did not present evidence sufficient to prove that he killed Xavier Hill knowingly or intentionally. In reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we will affirm the conviction unless, considering only the evidence and reasonable inferences favorable to the judgment, and neither reweighing the evidence nor judging the credibility of the witnesses, we conclude that no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Jenkins v. State, 726 N.E.2d 268, 270 (Ind.2000); Webster v. State, 699 N.E.2d 266, 268 (Ind.1998); Hodge v. State, 688 N.E.2d 1246, 1247-48 (Ind.1997). 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 § 35-41-2-1. The defendant acknowledges that the knowingly element may be inferred from surrounding circumstances. Br. of Appellant at 9; see, e.g., Lewis v. State, 740 N.E.2d 550 (Ind.2000); Anderson v. State, 681 N.E.2d 703 (Ind.1997). The facts favorable to the judgment show that the defendant was watching a fourteen-month old child while the child's mother ran errands. When the mother returned from her first errand, she saw that the defendant was playing with the child on the couch, and she told him to stop. She then left the house again, and when she returned home approximately ten minutes later, the child was having difficulty breathing and he had gone limp. When paramedics arrived, the child had no pulse and no blood pressure. He was pronounced dead less than an hour later. The autopsy revealed that the child died of a blunt force injury to his back with a laceration of his heart. He had suffered three blows: one to the front of his head, one to the back of his head, and one to his back. At trial, a forensic pathologist testified that the child's death was caused by a severe force from the back, as though he had been dropped from a height of several stories. The child was injured at or near the time of his death. When questioned, the pathologist agreed that the child might have sustained his injuries when he hit a couch, but he would have had to hit a solid part of the couch three times. The pathologist also agreed that it was possible that the child had been thrown against a wall, where he suffered the blows to his back and head, and then hit the floor, where he would have sustained the injury to his forehead. The defendant maintained that he had been swinging the child around in circles when he tripped and lost his grip on the child. He testified that he did not see where the child landed, but he found the child lying on the couch. When the mother returned home, the defendant was cleaning something from the couch. The child was lying on the floor, but the mother noticed that he wasn't breathing right. Record at 187. When she picked up the child, his head went back, his eyes rolled in his head and his body was just limp. Record at 188. The defendant argues that there was no evidence presented that would show that he had lashed out at any of the children or their mother the day that the child died. He also compares his case to Moriarity v. State, 620 N.E.2d 696 (Ind.1993) in which this Court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction of another defendant found guilty of murdering an infant. In that case, the child died as a result of one blow to the head that might have occurred at any time from twenty minutes to six hours before the defendant called 911, and the defendant had been watching the child for approximately one hour when he called for help. Moriarity, 620 N.E.2d at 697. The Court held that it was impossible for the jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as the blow the child suffered could well have occurred prior to the child being left in the care of appellant, and [o]ne can merely guess that appellant may have injured the child. Moriarity, 620 N.E.2d at 698. In contrast to Moriarity, however, here the child died from a severe blunt force injury at or near the time of his death. Approximately ten minutes before his mother found his injured body, the child had been actively engaged in normal activities. During this time, the child had been in the defendant's exclusive care. The defendant's testimony was inconsistent with the medical evidence from the autopsy. From the evidence and resulting reasonable inferences, a reasonable fact-finder may have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed the child. The evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's murder conviction.