Hendrix v. State, No. 574S96
| Docket Nº | No. 574S96 |
| Citation | 315 N.E.2d 701, 262 Ind. 309 |
| Case Date | August 26, 1974 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Page 701
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).
Rehearing Denied Nov. 27, 1974.
[262 Ind. 310]
Page 702
Paul J. Schwertley, South Bend, for appellant.Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., John H. Meyers, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
HUNTER, Justice.
This is a direct appeal from a conviction for first degree murder. Appellant raises the following issues for our consideration:
(1) Whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction;
(2) Whether the State failed to comply with court ordered discovery;
(3) Whether the prosecutor's closing argument was improper.
On appeal, this Court will not weigh the evidence nor determine the credibility of witnesses. We will consider only that evidence most favorable to the State and the inferences therefrom which will reasonably support the conviction.
The facts most favorable to the State disclose that on April 19, 1973, the appellant walked into a liquor store and observed
Page 703
a customer talking to the appellant's girl friend. The appellant drew a revolver and threatened the customer. At that time, another customer, the murder victim, walked to the exit. The appellant turned his gun on the victim, and admonished him to remain within the establishment: 'Ain't no m.....r f.....r going out of here before I do.' The victim, nevertheless,[262 Ind. 311] left the building and walked to his car. The appellant followed, had words with the victim, then fired at close range. After being wounded, the victim reached under his car seat for a weapon, fired at the appellant, and the appellant returned the fire killing the victim.Appellant's first contention is that the State's proof fails on the essential element of malice. However, it is well settled that the trier of fact may reasonably infer malice from the appellant's intentional use of a deadly weapon. Aubrey v. State (1974), Ind., 307 N.E.2d 67. Likewise, appellant's contention that a substantial amount of time must pass between the formation of the intent to kill and the homicidal act in order to prove premeditation is contrary to law. Premeditation need not continue over any protracted time period. The lapse between formation of the mens rea and the actus reus may be as instantaneous as successive thoughts. Aubrey v. State, supra.
In addition, the record contains abundant testimony that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hendrix v. Evans, Civ. No. S 84-625.
...Cir. 1983) (habeas corpus petition); Hendrix v. State, 418 N.E.2d 1161 (Ind.1981) (post-conviction relief appeal); and Hendrix v. State, 262 Ind. 309, 315 N.E.2d 701 (1974) (appeal of...
-
Guardiola v. State, No. 277S151
...to cite legal authority in support of contentions made on appeal may constitute a waiver of error, see, e. g., Hendrix v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 309, 315 N.E.2d 701, and Williams v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 543, 297 N.E.2d 805, at least where such authorities in fact exist and the argument is......
-
Swan v. State, No. 677S409
...properly read to the jury during final argument. Jenkins v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 589, 335 N.E.2d 215; Page 202 Hendrix v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 309, 315 N.E.2d 701. Only if a prosecutor's statement is so prejudicial as to place the defendant in "grave peril" must the case be reversed. Ma......
-
Manning v. Allgood, No. 3-1078A250
...with the rules can result in the waiver of errors on review. Ind.R.App.P. 8.3(A)(7); Guardiola v. State, supra; Hendrix v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 309, 315 N.E.2d 701. Since there is no argument or legal authority in support of this issue, the issue is not properly presented to us and is the......
-
Hendrix v. Evans, Civ. No. S 84-625.
...Cir. 1983) (habeas corpus petition); Hendrix v. State, 418 N.E.2d 1161 (Ind.1981) (post-conviction relief appeal); and Hendrix v. State, 262 Ind. 309, 315 N.E.2d 701 (1974) (appeal of...
-
Guardiola v. State, No. 277S151
...to cite legal authority in support of contentions made on appeal may constitute a waiver of error, see, e. g., Hendrix v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 309, 315 N.E.2d 701, and Williams v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 543, 297 N.E.2d 805, at least where such authorities in fact exist and the argument is......
-
Swan v. State, No. 677S409
...properly read to the jury during final argument. Jenkins v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 589, 335 N.E.2d 215; Page 202 Hendrix v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 309, 315 N.E.2d 701. Only if a prosecutor's statement is so prejudicial as to place the defendant in "grave peril" must the case be reversed. Ma......
-
Manning v. Allgood, No. 3-1078A250
...with the rules can result in the waiver of errors on review. Ind.R.App.P. 8.3(A)(7); Guardiola v. State, supra; Hendrix v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 309, 315 N.E.2d 701. Since there is no argument or legal authority in support of this issue, the issue is not properly presented to us and is the......