Opinion ID: 2087819
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: The defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for murder. He argues that the decedent's injuries could have come from other sources and that evidence of the defendant's opportunity to commit the crime and his presence when the crime was committed is not enough to support the conviction. The defendant also maintains that there was no evidence of intent to kill, arguing that he was intoxicated and that the death was accidental. A claim of insufficient evidence will prevail if, considering the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom which support the judgment, and without weighing evidence or assessing witness credibility, we conclude that no reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Case v. State (1984), Ind., 458 N.E.2d 223, 226; Loyd v. State (1980), 272 Ind. 404, 407, 398 N.E.2d 1260, 1264, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 881, 101 S.Ct. 231, 66 L.E.2d 105. See also Smith v. State (1988), Ind., 531 N.E.2d 1162, 1163. A conviction for murder requires proof that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed the decedent. See Ind.Code § 35-42-1-1. A person intentionally engages in particular conduct when it is his conscious objective to do so. Ind.Code § 35-41-2-2(a). A person knowingly engages in particular conduct when he is aware of a high probability that he is doing so. Ind.Code § 35-41-2-2(b). The evidence supporting the conviction is substantial. The defendant body slammed, kicked, hit, stomp[ed] on, and jumped upon the decedent and placed his foot on the decedent's neck. See Record at 344-45, 432, 461, 473. The decedent, missing both hands and a foot because of amputations, did not move during the assault, and had a blood alcohol content of .42% at the time of his death. Record at 192, 200, 393, 473. The defendant tried to prevent onlookers from intervening or calling the police. Record at 347-48, 355-56, 437, 476. In a telephone call to his uncle, the defendant stated that he thought he had killed the decedent. Record at 348-49. Another individual, Albert Wilson, testified to having kicked the decedent himself once earlier that day. Record at 346. However, it was not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant's acts were the sole cause of the decedent's death. The State merely needed to introduce sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's acts contributed, whether mediately or immediately, to the victim's death. See Bivins v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 184, 188-89, 258 N.E.2d 644, 646 (holding that defendant is responsible for decedent's death if the injury which he inflicted contributed to death, even if other causes also contributed). See also Tynes v. State (1995), Ind., 650 N.E.2d 685, 686-87. Furthermore, the autopsy indicated that the decedent had sustained cuts and bruises to the head, multiple fractures of the mandible (the lower jaw bone), a fractured hyoid bone (which is attached to the voice box), a lacerated liver, and various internal injuries, with his death resulting from aspiration of blood and internal hemorrhaging. Record at 384-85. These injuries are inconsistent with the defendant's claim that the decedent fell from a chair. Record at 386. Clearly, the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find the defendant guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.