Opinion ID: 854155
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: A loaded or unloaded firearm; or

Text: 2. A weapon, device, equipment, chemical substance, or other material that in the manner it is used, or could ordinarily be used, or is intended to be used, is readily capable of causing serious bodily injury. (R. at 66.) We find that this instruction creates only a permissive inference and not a mandatory presumption. The members of the jury were told that it was permissible for them to infer intent from the deliberate use of a deadly weapon, not that they were required to draw that inference. [3] Thus, this instruction passes the constitutional muster of both Sandstrom and Francis. We hold that no fundamental error resulted from the reading of this jury instruction. Defendant also challenges the following two jury instructions: You are further instructed that the state is not required to make proof of felonious intent, as a fact, by direct and positive evidence. The state is only required to produce such evidence as will satisfy the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime charged was committed by the defendant with the felonious intent charged in the information. A determination of the defendant's intent may be arrived at by the jury from a consideration of the defendant's conduct and the natural and usual sequence to which such conduct logically and reasonably points. (R. at 67.) You are instructed that where a certain kind of culpability is required to make an act an offense, such as in the charge preferred [sic] against the defendant, it is not always possible to prove a purpose by direct evidence, for purposes and intent are subjective facts. That is, they exist within the mind of man, and since you cannot delve into a person's mind and determine his purpose and intent, you may look to all the surrounding circumstances, including what was said and done in relation thereto. You may, however, infer that every person intends the natural and probable consequences of his voluntary acts, unless the circumstances are such to indicate the absence of such intent. When an unlawful act, however, is proved to be knowingly done, no further proof is needed on the part of the State in the absence of justifying or excusing facts. (R. at 44; 76.) We find no fundamental error in these instructions. We have upheld substantially similar instructions. See Winegeart, 665 N.E.2d at 903 (exactly the same language); Ortiz v. State, 558 N.E.2d 820, 821 (Ind.1990); Howey v. State, 557 N.E.2d 1326, 1331 (Ind.1990). See also Holliday v. State, 601 N.E.2d 385, 390-391 (Ind.Ct.App.1992); Elswick v. State, 565 N.E.2d 1123, 1128 (Ind. Ct.App.1991). We reiterate our reasoning in Winegeart, where we stated that the phrases may look to, may infer, and may consider, are indicative of permissive inferences, not mandatory presumptions. Winegeart, 665 N.E.2d at 904.