Jones v. State, No. 02S00-9704-CR-247
| Docket Nº | No. 02S00-9704-CR-247 |
| Citation | 689 N.E.2d 722 |
| Case Date | December 17, 1997 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Page 722
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).
Page 723
Mark A. Thoma, Deputy Public Defender, Fort Wayne, for Appellant.
Jeffrey A. Modisett, Attorney General, Katherine L. Modesitt, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, for Appellee.
SHEPARD, Chief Justice.
A jury found Curtis Lashun Jones guilty of murder, 1 and not guilty of attempted murder. 2 The trial court found aggravating circumstances and sentenced him to sixty-five years in prison.
In this direct appeal, Jones raises two issues:
1. Whether there was sufficient evidence of intent to support the conviction for murder; and
2. Whether the verdicts of not guilty on the attempted murder charge and guilty on the murder charge are inconsistent and irreconcilable.
Page 724
Neither of these claims warrants relief, so we affirm.
Facts
Shortly before 12:45 a.m. on June 16, 1995, Curtis Jones and his friend Troy Phinezy walked to the home located at 4324 Spatz Avenue in Fort Wayne. Both were carrying firearms: Phinezy a .380 handgun given to him by Jones, and Jones a nine millimeter semiautomatic handgun. Jones walked around to the front of the home while Phinezy remained in the back. Phinezy listened as Jones fired at least four shots in rapid succession into the window and open door of the home, where fifteen to twenty people were socializing. Three of the bullets struck Troy Williams, who bled to death. Another bullet struck Latrail Gamble in the arm, injuring but not killing him. Phinezy and Jones ran away, and the police arrived about fifteen minutes later.
At trial, Jones denied any involvement in the shooting, but both Jones's sister and one of his friends testified that he had told them the day after the shooting that he had fired the shots into the home. Jones, who was a gang member, told his friend that he had fired the shots because he was tired of rival gang members killing his friends.
I. The Evidence Was Sufficient
Jones first claims the State presented no evidence on the element of intent, observing that none of those who testified said Jones had ever declared that he had intended to kill Williams. Additionally, Jones essentially argues that because the evidence apparently was insufficient to prove that he attempted to kill Gamble, it must also have been insufficient to prove that he intentionally killed Williams.
In reviewing sufficiency claims, we will affirm the conviction unless we conclude from a review of the evidence that no reasonable trier of fact could have found that the defendant was guilty. In making this evaluation, we will neither re-weigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses, and will only consider the evidence most favorable to the verdict and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom.
To convict Jones of murder, the prosecution must prove, and the jury must find, that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed another human being. Ind.Code Ann. § 35-42-1-1(1) (West Supp.1997). When the victim's fatal injuries are inflicted by a deadly weapon, the trier of fact may infer intent to kill...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mart v. Forest River, Inc., No. 3:10 CV 118.
...handbooks as a basis for unilateral contracts appears to stem from a desire to keep the at-will employment doctrine in tact. Orr, 689 N.E.2d at 722 (“We decline plaintiffs' invitation to construe employee handbooks as unilateral contracts and to adopt a broad new exception to the at-will do......
-
Nieman v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., No. 09-3304.
...employee handbooks as unilateral contracts and to adopt a broad new exception to the at-will doctrine for such handbooks.” Orr, 689 N.E.2d at 722; see Workman v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 234 F.3d 998, 1000 (7th Cir.2000). The general rule is that Indiana is an at-will employment state a......
-
Miller v. State, No. 49S00-9705-CR-0294.
...797, 800 (Ind.1999); White v. State, 706 N.E.2d 1078, 1079 (Ind.1999); Hurst v. State, 699 N.E.2d 651, 654 (Ind.1998); Jones v. State, 689 N.E.2d 722, 724 (Ind. 1997); Holder v. State, 571 N.E.2d 1250, 1253 (Ind.1991). We will affirm a conviction where such evidence and reasonable inference......
-
Mitchell v. State, No. 49S00-9803-CR-163.
...jury verdicts, we will take corrective action only when the verdicts are "extremely contradictory and irreconcilable." Jones v. State, 689 N.E.2d 722, 724 (Ind.1997). See also Hodge v. State, 688 N.E.2d 1246, 1248 (Ind.1997) ("`Verdicts may be so extremely contradictory and irreconcilable a......
-
Mart v. Forest River, Inc., No. 3:10 CV 118.
...handbooks as a basis for unilateral contracts appears to stem from a desire to keep the at-will employment doctrine in tact. Orr, 689 N.E.2d at 722 (“We decline plaintiffs' invitation to construe employee handbooks as unilateral contracts and to adopt a broad new exception to the at-will do......
-
Nieman v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., No. 09-3304.
...employee handbooks as unilateral contracts and to adopt a broad new exception to the at-will doctrine for such handbooks.” Orr, 689 N.E.2d at 722; see Workman v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 234 F.3d 998, 1000 (7th Cir.2000). The general rule is that Indiana is an at-will employment state a......
-
Miller v. State, No. 49S00-9705-CR-0294.
...797, 800 (Ind.1999); White v. State, 706 N.E.2d 1078, 1079 (Ind.1999); Hurst v. State, 699 N.E.2d 651, 654 (Ind.1998); Jones v. State, 689 N.E.2d 722, 724 (Ind. 1997); Holder v. State, 571 N.E.2d 1250, 1253 (Ind.1991). We will affirm a conviction where such evidence and reasonable inference......
-
Mitchell v. State, No. 49S00-9803-CR-163.
...jury verdicts, we will take corrective action only when the verdicts are "extremely contradictory and irreconcilable." Jones v. State, 689 N.E.2d 722, 724 (Ind.1997). See also Hodge v. State, 688 N.E.2d 1246, 1248 (Ind.1997) ("`Verdicts may be so extremely contradictory and irreconcilable a......