Hinkle v. State, 283S77
| Decision Date | 17 December 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 283S77,283S77 |
| Citation | 471 N.E.2d 1088 |
| Parties | James HINKLE, Sr., Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Charles F. Leonard, Fort Wayne, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Gordon R. Medlicott, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Appellant was convicted by a jury of Murder, a Class A felony. The court sentenced appellant to thirty (30) years imprisonment. The sentence reflects a reduction in sentence from the presumptive forty (40) years due to the circumstances of the case.
The facts are: Appellant was called to the home of the victim, his estranged wife. After his arrival, an argument ensued. Appellant testified the victim made various verbal threats. She then attempted to obtain a knife from a drawer in the kitchen. Appellant prevented her from removing the knife from the drawer. The victim then left the room. She returned moments later with a gun. Appellant was able to take the gun from her possession and place it in the pocket of his pants.
After a period of quarreling, appellant turned to leave the room and the home. The victim again threatened appellant. She stated she would scald him as she had done on a previous occasion. Appellant indicated he heard a pan rattle on the stove. He then turned to see her at the stove. At that point, he pulled the gun from his pocket and fired four shots from close range. The victim died as a result of those shots. Appellant then called the authorities.
Appellant asserted a claim of self-defense by calling witnesses who testified in graphic detail of the victim's violent nature and her past acts of brutality toward appellant and the children.
In the case at bar, appellant alleges a lack of sufficient evidence to support the verdict. He argues the State failed to negate beyond a reasonable doubt his defense of self-defense. This question is treated in the same manner as any other challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. If there is sufficient evidence of probative value to support the conclusion of the trier of fact, then the verdict will not be disturbed. Smith v. State, (1983) Ind., 455 N.E.2d 346.
Appellant's assertion of self-defense requires him to make a showing of three facts: that he was in a place where he had a right to be; that he acted without fault; and that he had a reasonable fear or apprehension of death or great bodily harm. Bryan v. State, (1983) Ind., 450 N.E.2d 53. Once the claim has been asserted the State bears the burden of showing beyond a reasonable doubt the absence of one...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shackelford v. State
...had a right to be; (2) acted without fault; and (3) had a reasonable fear or apprehension of death or great bodily harm. Hinkle v. State (1984), Ind., 471 N.E.2d 1088. Voluntary intoxication requires a showing that the accused was so intoxicated as to be incapable of formulating the requisi......
-
Pittman v. State
...show the stabbing was the result of an accident or self-defense is not convincing, given the facts in this case. See Hinkle v. State (1984), Ind., 471 N.E.2d 1088, 1089. Finally, an accused is not constitutionally entitled at public expense to any type of expert he desires to support his ca......
-
Spann v. State
...beyond a reasonable doubt, our standard is the same as in any other challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Hinkle v. State (1984), Ind., 471 N.E.2d 1088, 1089, post-conviction relief denied, Hinkle v. State (1990), Ind.App., 569 N.E.2d 349, trans. denied. We will view only that evide......
-
Lilly v. State, 785S308
...to be; that he acted without fault; and that he had a reasonable fear or apprehension of death or great bodily harm. Hinkle v. State (1984), Ind., 471 N.E.2d 1088, 1089; Bryan v. State (1983), Ind., 450 N.E.2d 53, 63-64; Ind.Code Sec. 35-41-3-2 (Burns 1985). Once self-defense has been asser......