Harris v. State, 478S76
| Docket Nº | No. 478S76 |
| Citation | 269 Ind. 672, 382 N.E.2d 913 |
| Case Date | November 30, 1978 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Page 913
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
[269 Ind. 673]
Page 914
Thomas G. Krochta, Rice & Vanstone, Evansville, for appellant.Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Elmer Lloyd Whitmer, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
HUNTER, Justice.
The defendant, Virginia Jo Harris, was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to fifteen to twenty-five years' imprisonment. Upon her appeal to this Court, she raises four issues for our review:
1. Did the state produce sufficient evidence to show that the defendant did not act in self defense?
2. Was the evidence sufficient to support the existence of malice?
3. Did the trial court err in refusing to give the defendant's instruction on circumstantial evidence?
4. Did the trial court err in allowing the jury to see and hear certain items of evidence again after deliberations had begun?
The defendant and the deceased, Wilbur Hackner, had dated each other; after about a two-month split-up, Hackner called the defendant on the telephone and told her that he was going to come to her home to pick her up. Hackner did come for the defendant, and she went with him to his apartment. According to the defendant's testimony, an argument ensued in which she was threatened by Hackner. She picked up a gun which was lying on a table in order to keep Hackner away from her; when he continued to come after her, she shot him.
Despite the defendant's allegations that Hackner had beaten her on the day he was killed, defendant was not bruised or injured. And, contrary to her assertions that Hackner had been violent with her in the past, witnesses attested to the defendant's propensities for violence as well as Hackner's demonstrated restraint when he was previously attacked by the defendant. Hackner was a police officer and was skilled [269 Ind. 674] in the martial arts. The defendant
Page 915
argues that because of the vast difference in size between Hackner and herself, as well as Hackner's specialized training, the use of a gun in defending against his attack did not constitute unreasonable force.I.
The defendant first presents two questions which revolve around the allegation that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. Because the two questions are related, we shall discuss them together. And, when faced with a sufficiency of the evidence problem upon appeal, we are constrained to consider the facts which support the verdict along with all reasonable inferences which can be drawn from those facts. Baker v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 618, 298 N.E.2d 445.
The defendant asserts that the state did not produce sufficient evidence to show that she did not act in self-defense. It is true that the burden is upon the state to prove the absence of self-defense. Banks v. State (1971), 257 Ind. 530, 276 N.E.2d 155. However, this burden may be accomplished not only by rebuttal but also by an affirmative showing, within the state's case in chief, that the defendant was the probable aggressor and that she had no sufficient basis to believe that she was in danger of death or bodily harm. See Nelson v. State (1972), 259 Ind. 339, 287 N.E.2d 336. Here the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Decker v. State, 2-877-A-331
...in open court, and in the presence of the defendant and his attorney, allow the jurors to rehear testimony, Harris v. State (1978), Ind., 382 N.E.2d 913, the Court citing IC 5 Under no circumstances should this opinion be construed as approving the trial judge's oral instruction that a "toy......
-
Sanders v. State, 1080S385
...that he acted under sudden heat. Both of these defenses presented questions of fact for the jury to resolve. See Harris v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 672, 382 N.E.2d 913; Hester v. State, (1978) 267 Ind. 697, 373 N.E.2d 141; Robinson v. State, (1962) 243 Ind. 192, 184 N.E.2d 16. In doing so, th......
-
Mediate v. State, 1084S374
...inference of guilt must be more than a mere suspicion, conjecture, conclusion, guess, opportunity, or scintilla. Harris v. State (1978), 269 Ind. 672, 382 N.E.2d When the principal evidence which establishes that an appellant committed the theft or burglary is latent fingerprints, sufficien......
-
Foster v. State, 71S00-9709-CR-510
...Douglas v. State, 441 N.E.2d 957, 962 (Ind.1982), cited in Cade v. State, 590 N.E.2d 624, 625 (Ind.Ct.App.1992); Harris v. State, 269 Ind. 672, 676-77, 382 N.E.2d 913, 916 (1978); Ortiz v. State, 265 Ind. 549, 564-65, 356 N.E.2d 1188, 1197 (1976), overruled on other grounds, Smith v. State,......
-
Decker v. State, 2-877-A-331
...in open court, and in the presence of the defendant and his attorney, allow the jurors to rehear testimony, Harris v. State (1978), Ind., 382 N.E.2d 913, the Court citing IC 5 Under no circumstances should this opinion be construed as approving the trial judge's oral instruction that a "toy......
-
Sanders v. State, 1080S385
...that he acted under sudden heat. Both of these defenses presented questions of fact for the jury to resolve. See Harris v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 672, 382 N.E.2d 913; Hester v. State, (1978) 267 Ind. 697, 373 N.E.2d 141; Robinson v. State, (1962) 243 Ind. 192, 184 N.E.2d 16. In doing so, th......
-
Mediate v. State, 1084S374
...inference of guilt must be more than a mere suspicion, conjecture, conclusion, guess, opportunity, or scintilla. Harris v. State (1978), 269 Ind. 672, 382 N.E.2d When the principal evidence which establishes that an appellant committed the theft or burglary is latent fingerprints, sufficien......
-
Foster v. State, 71S00-9709-CR-510
...Douglas v. State, 441 N.E.2d 957, 962 (Ind.1982), cited in Cade v. State, 590 N.E.2d 624, 625 (Ind.Ct.App.1992); Harris v. State, 269 Ind. 672, 676-77, 382 N.E.2d 913, 916 (1978); Ortiz v. State, 265 Ind. 549, 564-65, 356 N.E.2d 1188, 1197 (1976), overruled on other grounds, Smith v. State,......