Lilly v. State, 785S308
| Decision Date | 14 April 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 785S308,785S308 |
| Citation | 506 N.E.2d 23 |
| Parties | Carl LILLY, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
J.A. Cummins, Public Defender for Delaware County, Muncie, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Michael Gene Worden, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Defendant-Appellant, Carl Lilly, was convicted by a Delaware County jury of murder. The trial court sentenced him to thirty (30) years imprisonment. In this direct appeal, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction.
The evidence presented to the jury is as follows. Appellant lived in a boarding house located at 219 East Gilbert Street in Muncie, Indiana. On January 16, 1985, Appellant and his fellow tenants were conversing and drinking in a common hallway of the boarding house. Appellant offered to trim the hair of a friend, William Nealon. The two entered Appellant's room. While Appellant trimmed Nealon's hair, the victim entered Appellant's room. Appellant grabbed his shotgun and shot the victim in the abdomen, resulting in his death.
William Nealon testified Appellant's door was not shut or latched, but was "almost to," indicating the door was ajar. Nealon stated Appellant left his door ajar unless he was sleeping or away. Nealon testified that when the victim entered Appellant's room, Appellant turned, grabbed a shotgun, cocked it, aimed it at the victim, and pulled the trigger. He stated he did not hear any words exchanged between Appellant and the victim prior to the shooting.
Appellant testified he had told the victim earlier that day to get out of his room and to stay out. He claimed the victim came back, pushed the door open, and threatened to beat Appellant. Appellant testified as to his knowledge of the victim's assaults on two other individuals. Further, Appellant was suffering from a broken ankle at the time. Appellant claims he feared for his life and shot the victim in self-defense.
Appellant argues on appeal that there was insufficient evidence presented to prove he was not acting in self-defense. When sufficiency of the evidence is challenged, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses, rather, we look to the evidence most favorable to the State along with all reasonable inferences therefrom. Weekly v. State (1986), Ind., 496 N.E.2d 29, 30. If there is substantial evidence of probative value from which the trier of fact might reasonably infer guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the verdict will not be disturbed. Harris v. State (1985), Ind., 480 N.E.2d 932, 937. When the defendant claims self-defense, he must prove 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. 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whittle v. State
...was in a place he had a right to be, he acted without fault, and he had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. Lilly v. State (1987), Ind., 506 N.E.2d 23, 24. Whittle cannot satisfy these requirements. The evidence shows Whittle and his companions pulled up in a van near the Blues......
-
Miller v. State
...was in reasonable fear or apprehension of death or great bodily harm. See Brooks v. State, 683 N.E.2d 574, 577 (Ind.1997); Lilly v. State, 506 N.E.2d 23, 24 (Ind.1987). Once a defendant claims self-defense, the State bears the burden of disproving at least one of these elements beyond a rea......
-
Schnitz v. State
...of the witnesses; rather, we look to the evidence most favorable to the State with all reasonable inferences therefrom. Lilly v. State (1987), Ind., 506 N.E.2d 23, 24. If there is substantial evidence of probative value from which the trier of fact might reasonably infer guilt beyond a reas......
-
Larkin v. State
...showing the defendant did not act in self-defense, or by simply relying upon the sufficiency of its evidence in chief." Lilly v. State , 506 N.E.2d 23, 24 (Ind. 1987). We will reverse a conviction only if no reasonable person could say the State overcame the self-defense claim beyond a reas......