Gant v. State

Decision Date15 July 1996
Docket NumberNo. 49S00-9509-CR-1033,49S00-9509-CR-1033
Citation668 N.E.2d 254
PartiesRobert Lee GANT, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

Aaron E. Haith, Indianapolis, for Appellant.

Pamela Carter, Attorney General, Lisa M. Paunicka, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, for Appellee.

SHEPARD, Chief Justice.

A jury found appellant Robert Lee Gant guilty of murder, Ind.Code Ann. § 35-42-1-1 (West Supp.1995), in the killing of Dale Cheshier. The trial court sentenced him to sixty years in prison. Gant appeals on the basis that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm.

In reviewing claims about the sufficiency of the evidence, we neither weigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. We consider the evidence favorable to the jury's verdict and all reasonable inferences which can be drawn from it. If there is substantial evidence of probative value from which a trier of fact could find guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, we affirm. Campbell v. State, 500 N.E.2d 174 (Ind.1986).

The evidence at trial showed that Cheshier and Walker Eugene King drove to the Hawthorne Apartments in Indianapolis to buy drugs. Cheshier stopped the car, and a fellow known as Ducky approached the drivers' side window. Cheshier asked if he could get "two for thirty-five", and Ducky agreed. Cheshier gave him some money and Ducky tendered some drugs. As Cheshier began to drive away, Ducky complained loudly that the money was short of the agreed amount. Cheshier backed up and exited the car. An argument ensued and Ducky hit Cheshier on the face with his hand. Gant stepped forward with a shotgun, pointing it alternatively at Cheshier and at King, who had also exited the vehicle. Gant shot Cheshier from a distance of about five feet. Gant and Ducky laughed and ran away.

King drove off looking for help. He eventually accompanied the police to headquarters, giving statements about the night's events. He later identified Gant in court as the shooter. Gant challenges the credibility of King's testimony on several grounds. He notes that King initially gave police an alias, apparently because there were outstanding warrants for his own arrest. He also challenges King's ability to identify the shooter later at night in unfavorable lighting conditions.

These points do reflect on the credibility of King as a witness, but assessing King's credibility was a matter for the jury at trial and not for us...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Wooley v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • September 29, 1999
    ...In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence claim, we do not reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses. Gant v. State, 668 N.E.2d 254, 255 (Ind.1996). Wooley's conviction will be affirmed if the probative evidence and reasonable inferences drawn could have allowed a reasonable ......
  • Williams v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • June 29, 1999
    ...beyond a reasonable doubt, we will affirm the conviction." Newman v. State, 677 N.E.2d 590, 593 (Ind.Ct.App.1997) (citing Gant v. State, 668 N.E.2d 254, 255 (Ind.1996)). We are also mindful that the jury is the trier of fact and is entitled to determine which version of the incident to cred......
  • Nantz v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • January 11, 2001
    ...beyond a reasonable doubt, we will affirm the conviction." Newman v. State, 677 N.E.2d 590, 593 (Ind.Ct.App.1997) (citing Gant v. State, 668 N.E.2d 254, 255 (Ind.1996)). To convict Nantz of pointing a firearm as a Class D felony the State was required to prove that he knowingly or intention......
  • Anderson v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • August 20, 1998
    ...In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence claim, we do not reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses. Gant v. State, 668 N.E.2d 254, 255 (Ind.1996). The conviction will be affirmed if the probative evidence and reasonable inferences drawn could have allowed a reasonable jury ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT