England v. State
| Decision Date | 20 December 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 678S115,678S115 |
| Citation | 270 Ind. 89,383 N.E.2d 320 |
| Parties | Larry Thomas ENGLAND, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Noble R. Pearcy, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Elmer Lloyd Whitmer, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Appellant was convicted of second degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. In this appeal, he raises essentially one issue: That the verdict of the jury was not supported by sufficient evidence of premeditation, malice, and purpose. We consider only the latter two elements, as premeditation is not an element of second degree murder. IC § 35-1-54-1 (Burns 1975).
The evidence most favorable to the State reveals that the decedent John R. Harris was stabbed to death in a fight outside the Blue Front Tavern in Indianapolis on June 16, 1975. The decedent and one Donald Davenport got into an argument around 10:00 p. m. They were separated, sat down together, and then at 11:00 p. m. the two left the tavern by way of the back door. Appellant and several other patrons of the bar followed them outside. The decedent and Davenport began fighting. Appellant then joined in. He kicked the decedent and struck him with his fists. While the decedent and Davenport were on the ground with the decedent on top of Davenport, appellant stabbed the decedent several times.
Appellant himself testified that he stabbed the decedent. He also demonstrated to the jury how he held the knife, and his movements in the stabbing.
This Court, on appeal, does not reweigh conflicting evidence, but will instead leave such considerations to the jury. So long as the record contains substantial evidence of probative value from which the jury could have inferred the elements of the charged offense, the conviction will be affirmed. Spaulding v. State (1978), Ind., 373 N.E.2d 165. The jury may infer the elements of malice and purpose from the circumstances of the stabbing, the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon, or the act of killing a human being. Lindley v. State (1978), Ind., 373 N.E.2d 886.
Viewing the evidence in the case at bar in the light most favorable to the State, it is clear that there is sufficient evidence of malice and purpose to support the verdict of the jury. The events of the stabbing as recited above, the use of the knife, and the uncontroverted evidence that appellant did in fact stab and kill the decedent constitute substantial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...not be disturbed. Burr v. State, (1980) Ind., 403 N.E.2d 343; Norris v. State, (1979) 271 Ind. 568, 394 N.E.2d 144; England v. State, (1978) 270 Ind. 89, 383 N.E.2d 320. In the case at bar, J.K. testified her son left for school from the back door and was in the habit of leaving the door un......
-
Russell v. State
...that person, particularly when these acts occur in the midst of a personal argument." Id., 383 N.E.2d at 1030. See also, England v. State, (1978) Ind., 383 N.E.2d 320; Berry v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 432, 376 N.E.2d 808. We have often recognized that malice and intent may be inferred from t......
-
Hulen v. State
...was evidence upon which the jury could base a decision that he had knowingly and intentionally killed the victim. See England v. State, (1978) Ind., 383 N.E.2d 320, 321. The intent to kill may be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death. Johnson v. State, (......
- Petro v. State