Opinion ID: 853613
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Jackson admits that he killed his wife, but asserts that the evidence was insufficient to prove that it was a knowing or intentional killing. The standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence claims is well settled. We do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Harrison v. State, 707 N.E.2d 767, 788 (Ind.1999). We will affirm the trial court if the probative evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence could have allowed a reasonable trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Bunch v. State, 697 N.E.2d 1255, 1257 (Ind.1998). Murder is the knowing[ ] or intentional[ ] kill[ing][of] another human being. Ind.Code § 35-42-1-1 (1998). Jackson was charged with knowingly killing Debbie. Under Indiana Code § 35-41-2-2(b), [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. To kill knowingly is to engage in conduct with an awareness that the conduct has a high probability of resulting in death. Lyttle v. State, 709 N.E.2d 1, 3 (Ind.1999). A knowing killing may be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death. Barker v. State, 695 N.E.2d 925, 931-32 (Ind.1998). The morning of the shooting began with an argument between Jackson and Debbie. Jackson testified that he might have threatened his wife, that he was looking for the gun to scare her, and that the gun was loaded. He also testified that he might have thrown her against the kitchen door during the course of the argument. According to his testimony, he took the gun, cocked it and aimed it toward the ceiling. He then lowered the gun and it discharged while pointed at his wife's head. The jury was free to disbelieve Jackson's testimony that the discharge was an accident. The jury also could have concluded that Jackson acted with an awareness of the probable consequences of his actions. [4] Thus, on either basis, a reasonable jury could have concluded that the evidence was sufficient to find Jackson guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.