Brasher v. State
| Decision Date | 24 April 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 49S00-9909-CR-460.,49S00-9909-CR-460. |
| Citation | 746 N.E.2d 71 |
| Parties | Paul BRASHER, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Timothy J. Miller, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellant. Jeffrey A. Modisett, Attorney General of Indiana, Priscilla J. Fossum, Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
Defendant Paul Brasher was convicted of murder and robbery for shooting his friend and taking his money and pager. We find that the State presented sufficient evidence for a jury to convict the defendant of murder.
The facts most favorable to the verdict indicate that on May 6, 1998, Defendant Paul Brasher gathered with three of his friends, Adrian Coleman, Johnny Simpson, and the victim, Dwayne Blackmon, at Defendant's grandmother's house. Defendant showed off two guns to the others. Blackmon also had a gun. Defendant, Coleman, and Blackmon decided to go to a nearby park to shoot the guns. At the park, Defendant shot Blackmon in the back of the head. He then took some money and a pager out of Blackmon's pocket.
The State charged Defendant with Murder1, Felony Murder2, and Robbery, a Class A felony.3 A jury found Defendant guilty of all three counts. The trial court merged the two counts of murder and sentenced Defendant to concurrent sentences of 55 years for the murder and 40 years for the robbery.
Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of murder. Appellant's Br. at 7. Defendant also argues that the conviction rested on only one eyewitness, Coleman, and that his testimony was "incredibl[y] dubious" and "equivocal." Id. at 10.
In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, the Court neither reweighs the evidence nor assesses the credibility of the witnesses. See Garland v. State, 719 N.E.2d 1236, 1238 (Ind.1999)
. We look to the evidence most favorable to the verdict and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Sanders v. State, 704 N.E.2d 119, 123 (Ind.1999). We will affirm the conviction if there is probative evidence from which a reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See Brown v. State, 720 N.E.2d 1157, 1158 (Ind.1999).
Simpson and Coleman both testified that Defendant had two guns and Blackmon had one gun. Simpson and Coleman also testified that Defendant, Blackmon, and Coleman were going to go to Solomon Park to shoot guns. Coleman testified that at the park, Defendant asked Blackmon if he could see his gun, whereupon Blackmon gave his gun to Defendant and Defendant gave it to Coleman to hold. Coleman further testified that Defendant pulled out his own gun and pointed it at Blackmon and told Blackmon to turn around. According to Coleman, Defendant shot Blackmon in the back of the head. Coleman testified that, at Defendant's direction, he helped Defendant put Blackmon's body in a nearby stream.
It is well established that the testimony of a single eye witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Emerson v. State, 724 N.E.2d 605, 609-10 (Ind.2000), rehearing denied; Anderson v. State, 469 N.E.2d 1166, 1169 (Ind.1984),cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1226, 105 S.Ct. 1220, 84 L.Ed.2d 361 (1985). There was an eye witness-Coleman-testifying to the shooting, and the location and physical evidence were consistent with his story; the State presented evidence that Blackmon was killed by a gunshot to the back of the head. Blackmon's body was found in the stream near the location Coleman testified that Brasher shot Blackmon. There was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Defendant argues that Coleman's testimony should be disregarded. Defendant cites Tillman v. State, 642 N.E.2d 221, 223 (Ind.1994), for the proposition that the judge may "`impinge on the jury's responsibility to judge the credibility of the witness' " where a "`sole witness presents inherently contradictory testimony which is equivocal or the result of coercion and there is a complete lack of circumstantial evidence of the appellant's guilt.'" Appellant's Br. at 10. (citing Tillman 642 N.E.2d at 223.)
Though most of the State's case rests on the testimony of Coleman, there is no evidence that his testimony is contradictory or equivocal. None of Coleman's facts conflict, and his testimony is consistent with the story he told to other witnesses and the police.4 As stated above, the location of the body and the nature of the wound in the victim are consistent with Coleman's testimony.
Reduced to its essentials, Defendant's argument is that Coleman's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woodford v. State
...of the evidence claim, this Court neither reweighs the evidence nor assesses the credibility of the witnesses. See Brasher v. State, 746 N.E.2d 71, 72 (Ind.2001). We only consider the evidence most favorable to the jury's verdict, along with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, ......
-
Pugh v. State
...to the sufficiency of the evidence, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. Brasher v. State, 746 N.E.2d 71, 72 (Ind.2001). Instead, we consider only the evidence most favorable to the verdict and any reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Id. If there is......
-
Love v. State
...of the evidence claim, the Court neither reweighs the evidence nor assesses the credibility of the witnesses. See Brasher v. State, 746 N.E.2d 71, 72 (Ind.2001); Chambliss v. State, 746 N.E.2d 73, 77 (Ind.2001). We look to the evidence most favorable to the verdict and reasonable inferences......
-
Hero v. State
...a sufficiency of the evidence claim, the court neither reweighs the evidence nor assesses the credibility of witnesses. Brasher v. State, 746 N.E.2d 71, 72 (Ind.2001). The reviewing court looks to the evidence most favorable to the verdict, and the reasonable inferences therefrom. Id. The c......