Lewis v. State
| Decision Date | 22 December 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 49S00-9910-CR-611.,49S00-9910-CR-611. |
| Citation | 740 N.E.2d 550 |
| Parties | Christopher LEWIS, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Robert W. Hammerle, Joseph M. Cleary, Hammerle Foster Allen & Long-Sharp, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for Appellant.
Karen M. Freeman-Wilson, Attorney General of Indiana, Kostas A. Poulakidas, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for Appellee.
Following a bench trial, nineteen-year-old Christopher Lewis was convicted of murder for the beating death of his twenty-year-old girlfriend Stacie Harris. In this direct appeal Lewis raises one issue for our review: is the evidence sufficient to support his conviction?
We affirm the trial court.
Lewis and Harris met in middle school and dated off and on since their sophomore year of high school. On the evening of May 1, 1998, Lewis and Harris got into an argument about Harris' alleged infidelity. The facts most favorable to the verdict show that Lewis shoved Harris into a wall, strangled her, slammed her onto the ground, swung her into furniture and a wall, and hit and kicked her. After the fight, both Lewis and Harris fell asleep.
Because Harris was unresponsive the following morning, Lewis and Harris' friend took her to the emergency room. Tests revealed that Harris was clinically brain dead. After consultation with Harris' family, the doctors removed her from the ventilator on May 3. Harris died minutes later.
After a bench trial, Lewis was convicted of murder and sentenced to fifty-five years imprisonment. This direct appeal followed. Additional facts are set forth below where relevant.
Lewis admits that he killed Harris but asserts that the evidence was insufficient to prove that it was a knowing killing. The standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence claims is well-settled. We do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Jackson v. State, 728 N.E.2d 147, 153 (Ind.2000). We will affirm the trial court if the probative evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence could have allowed a reasonable trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
The State charged Lewis with murder for the knowing killing of Harris. Under Indiana Code § 35-41-2-2(b), "[a] person engages in conduct `knowingly' if, when he engages in the conduct, he is aware of a high probability that he is doing so." To kill knowingly is to engage in conduct with an awareness that the conduct has a high probability of resulting in death. Lyttle v. State, 709 N.E.2d 1, 3 (Ind.1999).
In Anderson v. State, 681 N.E.2d 703 (Ind.1997), the defendant alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support the knowing killing of his girlfriend's twenty-one-month-old child on grounds that he only struck the child in the chest to stop her from crying. The evidence in that case showed that the child sustained blunt force injuries all over her body, a ruptured diaphragm, and a torn esophagus and stomach. We found sufficient evidence to support the element of a knowing killing in part because "[f]rom the severity of [the child's] injuries ..., there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that [the] defendant knowingly killed [the child]...." Id. at 708. See also Owens v. State, 659 N.E.2d 466, 473 (Ind.1995) ().
Here the State introduced extensive evidence of the severity of Harris' injuries. Dr. Dean Hawley, the forensic pathologist who performed Harris' autopsy, testified at trial that Harris' body contained blunt force injuries that "completely cover[ed] her body from head to toe, front and back." R. at 314. The blunt force impacts to Harris' head caused her brain to swell and herniate through the base of her skull, resulting in brain death. R. at 314. Dr. Hawley testified that he could not pinpoint what specific head injury caused Harris' brain death...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Forrest v. State, 49S00-0012-CR-748.
...acknowledges that the "knowingly" element may be inferred from surrounding circumstances. Br. of Appellant at 9; see, e.g., Lewis v. State, 740 N.E.2d 550 (Ind.2000); Anderson v. State, 681 N.E.2d 703 The facts favorable to the judgment show that the defendant was watching a fourteen-month ......
-
Watkins v. State
...clear that Anderson was knowingly killed and robbed by a perpetrator armed with a deadly weapon—most likely a knife. See Lewis v. State, 740 N.E.2d 550, 552 (Ind.2000) (holding in part that the severity of a victim's injuries may be sufficient evidence from which a trier of fact can conclud......
-
M.S. v. State
...Ind.Code § 35-41-2-2). The "knowingly" element of an offense may be inferred from surrounding circumstances. Id. (citing Lewis v. State, 740 N.E.2d 550 (Ind.2000), reh'g denied; Anderson v. State, 681 N.E.2d 703 (Ind. Here, the facts most favorable to the conviction reveal that M.S. was dri......