Opinion ID: 853312
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: West argues that there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty of killing Hollen. This contention relies on the premise that the blood smear seized from his Blazer should have been excluded under the Fourth Amendment, and that Warren's testimony should have been suppressed under the incredible dubiosity rule. We rejected these arguments in Part I and Part II.D n. 5. Our standard for review of sufficiency claims is well settled. We do not reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses. Rather, we look to the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom that support the verdict and will affirm the conviction if there is probative evidence from which a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Taylor v. State, 681 N.E.2d 1105, 1110 (Ind.1997). Felony murder consists of the killing of another being while committing or attempting to commit one of the listed felonies in Indiana Code section 35-42-1-1, including robbery. On the day of the murder, West offered Collins a carton of cigarettes and $10 to repay a debt and asked Collins to try to convince Rogers to front him $30 so he could buy crack. Early the next morning, West had managed to assemble $275 to purchase an eight-ball of crack. This evidence of West's motive and acquisition of cash, along with the blood smear, the fingerprint on the pizza box, the footprint, and Warren's and Larkin's testimony, was more than sufficient for a reasonable jury to find West guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of felony murder.