Opinion ID: 853719
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Chapman first argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed a knowing or intentional killing. Our standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence claims is well established. We do not reweigh evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses. We look to the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom that support the verdict and will affirm the conviction if there is sufficient probative evidence from which a reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Taylor v. State, 681 N.E.2d 1105, 1110 (Ind.1997). [T]he use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death or serious bodily injury is sufficient evidence of intent to support a conviction for murder. Torres v. State, 673 N.E.2d 472, 473 (Ind.1996) (citing Light v. State, 547 N.E.2d 1073, 1082 (Ind.1989)); accord Storey v. State, 552 N.E.2d 477, 480 (Ind.1990) (The use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death or great bodily harm permits the jury to infer the defendant's knowledge that he was killing another.). Smith and Washington saw Chapman hold a gun to C.J.'s head and fire it, and J.D. heard the gunshot immediately before C.J. fell over against him. Moreover, immediately before the shooting Chapman asked C.J. if he wanted to catch a bullet or take a bullet. This is sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict of a knowing or intentional killing. [2]