Isom v. State
| Decision Date | 30 December 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 885S338,885S338 |
| Citation | 501 N.E.2d 1074 |
| Parties | Carl Lee ISOM, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
William F. Thoms, Jr., Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Jody Cusson-Cobb, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Defendant-Appellant Carl Lee Isom was convicted at the conclusion of a jury trial in the Marion County Superior Court of conspiracy to commit murder, a class A felony, and murder. He was sentenced to thirty (30) years for conspiracy and forty (40) years for murder, to be served concurrently. On direct appeal, the sole issue is the sufficiency of the evidence.
On August 1, 1983, Appellant offered to sell some marijuana to three bicycle riders, including the victim, Curtis Payton. During the transaction, Payton grabbed Appellant from behind, and a scuffle ensued. The marijuana was taken and the three bicyclists rode away. Appellant went to meet co-defendant Karl Haynes. Appellant told Haynes of what had taken place, and informed him that he wanted Haynes to accompany him to find the trio that had taken his marijuana. Haynes retrieved his gun from his bedroom and drove with Appellant to another man's house in order to secure a gun for Appellant. Haynes assured Appellant that they would find the trio and retrieve the marijuana. Appellant said, I'm going to get the 'nigger' back." Haynes testified that as they looked for the trio, Appellant calmed down and was no longer angry. Approximately forty (40) minutes after the original confrontation, Appellant and Haynes located and approached Curtis Payton. Appellant walked up to Payton, shot him in the side, and asked him where his "stuff" was. Payton motioned to one of his companions, and Haynes struck Payton as he attempted to flee. Payton continued to flee, and Appellant and Haynes pursued him and fired their guns upon him, as Appellant said, "If you don't stop I'm going to shoot your mother-f______ ass again." Numerous more shots were fired as Payton tried to flee. He was found lying face down between two homes, and died of gunshot wounds. Appellant and Haynes fled after firing upon Payton.
Appellant argues first, that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction for conspiracy because the State failed to prove that he conspired to commit a murder. Appellant argues that any conspiracy would have been merely to get back the stolen marijuana.
Ind.Code Sec. 35-41-5-2 states in part:
When sufficiency of the evidence is raised on appeal, we do not weigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses; rather, we look to the evidence most favorable to the State and all reasonable inferences therefrom. If a substantial body of probative evidence is found from which the jury could reasonably infer guilt, the verdict will not be disturbed. Harris v. State (1985), Ind., 480 N.E.2d 932, 937.
A conviction for conspiracy, as in any crime, may rest on circumstantial evidence alone. Smith v. State (1984), Ind., 405 N.E.2d 1105, 1121, reh. denied (1...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. State
...evidence is enough to show an agreement to murder J.W. See Bonds v. State, 721 N.E.2d 1238, 1242 (Ind. 1999) ; Isom v. State, 501 N.E.2d 1074, 1075 (Ind. 1986). And it is more than in Seketa v. State, where the Court of Appeals reversed a conspiracy to commit aggravated battery conviction b......
-
Huffman v. State
...rea may be inferred from circumstantial evidence, including overt acts of the parties in pursuance of the criminal act. Isom v. State (1986), Ind., 501 N.E.2d 1074. Appellant argues his consecutive sentences for conspiracy to commit robbery and conspiracy to commit murder are erroneous beca......
-
Mftari v. State
...circumstantial evidence indicating a conspiracy to burglarize hotel rooms, defense counsel cannot be faulted. See Isom v. State (1986), Ind., 501 N.E.2d 1074 (conspiracy may rest upon circumstantial evidence). Likewise, we do not agree with the defendant's claim that the alleged insufficien......
-
Brown v. State
...does not suggest that Defendant was acting under sudden heat when he returned to the house several hours later. Cf. Isom v. State, 501 N.E.2d 1074, 1075 (Ind.1986) ("Forty minutes after the initial confrontation, Appellant found Payton, threatened him, and shot him numerous times, knowing h......