Butler v. State
| Decision Date | 14 December 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 49S00-8808-CR-0693,49S00-8808-CR-0693 |
| Citation | 547 N.E.2d 270 |
| Parties | Christopher BUTLER, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
S. Sargent Visher, Choate Visher & Haith, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Lisa Anne McCoy, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
The defendant, Christopher Butler, was convicted in a jury trial of murder and carrying a handgun without a license. He received a sixty-year sentence for murder and a concurrent one-year sentence for the handgun offense. In this direct appeal, the issues presented may be grouped into two areas: 1) failure to prohibit witness from testifying; and 2) insufficient negation of self-defense claim.
At the inception of the discovery process, the State provided defense counsel with a copy of Bobby Dixson's statement to the police, which defense counsel at trial acknowledged having read. Before trial, Dixson twice failed to appear for depositions to be conducted by defense counsel. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on the failure of several witnesses, including Dixson, to appear for depositions. The trial court denied the motion. The State located Dixson the night before trial and called him to testify. Over the defendant's objection, the trial court permitted Dixson to testify after defense counsel had deposed him.
The defendant claims that the trial court violated his right to a fair trial by permitting Dixson to testify over objection and in contravention of an earlier trial court ruling. He claims that as an alternative to his pre-trial motion to dismiss he requested that the trial court not permit Dixson to testify if he appeared. The record, however, fails to show that this alternative motion was even made, let alone granted, thus precluding our review on this basis. The defendant further asserts that his opportunity to adequately prepare for trial was severely impaired because he had relied on Dixson's absence from the trial. He fails to indicate any specific unfairness in permitting Dixson to testify, saying merely that a pre-trial examination "could" have led to the preservation of impeachment evidence in the form of testimony of other witnesses. The defendant has failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion.
The defendant next claims that the State failed to negate his claim of self-defense and to connect the cause of the victim's death to the defendant's conduct. The shooting, he claims, was precipitated by the victim reaching for a gun.
In addressing the issue of sufficiency of evidence, we will affirm the conviction if, considering only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict, without weighing evidence or assessing witness credibility, a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Case v. State (1984), Ind., 458 N.E.2d 223; Loyd v. State (1980), 272 Ind. 404, 398 N.E.2d 1260, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 881, 101 S.Ct. 231, 66 L.Ed.2d 105.
The use of deadly force in self-defense requires that the person using such force: 1) be in a place where he has a right to be; 2) act without fault; and 3) act in reasonable fear or apprehension of death or great bodily harm. Lilly v. State (1987), Ind., 506 N.E.2d 23; Loyd, 272 Ind. 404, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. State
...who is the initial aggressor except in circumstances not present here.2 Freeze v. State, 491 N.E.2d 202, 204 (Ind.1986); Butler v. State, 547 N.E.2d 270, 272 (Ind.1989); see also Davis, 456 N.E.2d at 408 (finding that the jury could have reasonably inferred that the defendant was the initia......
-
Corbin v. State
...act committed by him caused David's death. This Court will not weigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Butler v. State (1989), Ind., 547 N.E.2d 270. Under Ind.Code Sec. 35-41-4-1(b), the burden is on appellant to prove insanity by a preponderance. Thus appellant's argumen......
-
Fox v. State
... ... We fail to find how the testimony of these two individuals would have produced a different result. We find no error ... Appellant contends there was insufficient evidence to sustain the verdict. The weighing of evidence is the prerogative of the jury not this Court. Butler v. State (1989), Ind., 547 N.E.2d 270 ... Circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Jones v. State (1986), Ind., 500 N.E.2d 1166. Circumstantial evidence need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Burton v. State (1988), Ind., 526 ... ...
-
Braswell v. State
...witness credibility, a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Butler v. State (1989), Ind., 547 N.E.2d 270; Case v. State (1984), Ind., 458 N.E.2d It is appellant's assertion that William Wills, appellant's chief accuser, was an admi......