Leon v. State

Decision Date12 July 1988
Docket NumberNo. 45S00-8608-CR-786,45S00-8608-CR-786
Citation525 N.E.2d 331
PartiesMark LEON, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

Diane McNeal, Crown Point, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Cheryl Lynn Greiner, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

SHEPARD, Chief Justice.

Appellant Mark Leon was tried before a jury and convicted of attempted murder, a class A felony. Ind.Code Secs. 35-42-1-1, 35-41-5-1 (Burns 1985 Repl.). The trial court sentenced Leon to thirty years imprisonment.

On direct appeal, Leon raises two issues:

I. Whether the trial court erred in refusing appellant's tendered instruction on the lesser included offense of battery, a class C felony, and

II. Whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a jury's conviction for attempted murder.

The evidence shows that Leon and Janet King had dated for approximately two years and had a child together. After King broke off the relationship, Leon threatened to kill her on several occasions, saying that if he could not have her, nobody else would. On the night of October 3, 1985, King exited a liquor store in Gary, Indiana, entered her car and locked the door. Leon walked up to the driver's window and shot King three times, hitting her once in the mouth and twice in the body. At a hospital emergency room, King told her mother and police that Leon shot her.

Leon argues that he was not the person who shot King, that he had never threatened her, and that he was not even in the neighborhood when the incident occurred. Leon's next door neighbor testified that Leon was at her house during the shooting.

I. Instruction on Lesser Included Offense

Leon argues that the trial court erred in refusing his tendered instruction for the lesser included offense of battery, a class C felony.

This Court described the method for determining whether to instruct upon a lesser included offense in Jones v. State (1988), Ind., 519 N.E.2d 1233. First, the trial court must determine whether the lesser offense is included within the crime charged by examining the statutory elements of both offenses and the allegations in the charging instrument. Second, the trial court must examine the evidence to support any distinguishing elements between the two offenses. If evidence on the distinguishing element is sufficient and is not in serious dispute, the trial court should refuse the lesser included instruction to avoid the possibility of a compromise verdict.

Battery by means of a deadly weapon requires a touching. Because it is possible to attempt murder without touching the intended victim, battery is not inherently a lesser included offense of attempted murder. Malott v. State (1985), Ind., 485 N.E.2d 879. The charging information in this case, however, alleged infliction of a wound and thus battery was clearly a lesser included offense.

The distinguishing element between these two offenses is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • Meriweather v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • November 30, 1995
    ...alleges a factual physical transgression against the victim so as to satisfy the "touching" element of battery. Leon v. State (1988) Ind., 525 N.E.2d 331, 332; Larry v. State (1988) Ind., 517 N.E.2d 377, 378; Johnson v. State (1984) Ind., 464 N.E.2d 1309, Until the mid-1980s, Indiana decisi......
  • Wilson v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • July 17, 1998
    ...alleges a factual physical transgression against the victim so as to satisfy the "touching" element of battery. Leon v. State, 525 N.E.2d 331, 332 (Ind.1988). The charging information in the present case DONALD STEWART WILSON did attempt to commit the crime of Murder, to-wit: Knowingly or i......
  • Cohen v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • August 5, 1999
    ...Wilson v. State, 697 N.E.2d 466, 476 (Ind.1998); Porter v. State, 671 N.E.2d 152, 154 (Ind.Ct.App.1996), trans. denied; Leon v. State, 525 N.E.2d 331, 332 (Ind.1988).13 Although touching is an essential element of battery, it is not required to obtain a conviction for attempted murder becau......
  • Ellis v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • October 18, 2000
    ...murder with intent to kill the only element differentiating the two. Wilson v. State, 697 N.E.2d 466, 475 (Ind.1998); Leon v. State, 525 N.E.2d 331, 332 (Ind.1988). Nor can it be less serious than armed robbery where, like attempted murder, in some cases the victim suffers no physical In sh......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT