Martin v. State, 1185S481
| Decision Date | 10 September 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 1185S481,1185S481 |
| Citation | 512 N.E.2d 850 |
| Parties | Clyde MARTIN, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Robert L. Stephan, South Bend, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Jay Rodia, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Appellant Clyde Martin was accused of fatally shooting Hugh Tucker in a South Bend tavern on February 25, 1984. A jury found Martin guilty of murder, Ind.Code Sec. 35-42-1-1(1) (Burns 1985 Repl.), and the trial court sentenced him to 35 years imprisonment.
Martin raises two issues on direct appeal:
1) Whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction in light of his self-defense claim; and
2) Whether on rebuttal the trial court properly admitted the defendant's inculpatory statement made several months after the shooting.
Martin argues that the jury's determination of guilt is unsupported by the evidence because it showed that he acted in self-defense. A valid claim of self-defense is legal justification for an otherwise criminal act. Jennings v. State (1974), 262 Ind. 476, 318 N.E.2d 358.
When reviewing a sufficiency claim, this Court will consider only the evidence most favorable to the verdict with all logical inferences drawn therefrom. Spinks v. State (1982), Ind., 437 N.E.2d 963. We will not reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. The verdict will not be disturbed when there is substantial probative evidence from which the trier of fact could reasonably infer guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Loyd v. State (1980), 272 Ind. 404, 398 N.E.2d 1260, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 881, 101 S.Ct. 231, 66 L.Ed.2d 105.
To prevail on a claim of self-defense in a homicide prosecution, the defendant must show 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 of death or great bodily harm. Wade v. State (1985), Ind., 482 N.E.2d 704; see also Ind.Code Sec. 35-41-3-2. Once the defendant raises the issue of self-defense, the State bears the burden of disproving the existence of one of the elements of self-defense. Green v. State (1982), Ind., 438 N.E.2d 266. Among the ways this burden can be met is to present evidence sufficient to convince a reasonable juror beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, in light of all the circumstances known to him, could not have entertained a bona fide belief he was in danger of death or great bodily harm. Shutt v. State (1977), 267 Ind. 110, 367 N.E.2d 1376.
The evidence most favorable to the verdict showed that on February 25, 1984, Martin spent most of the day drinking in Austin's Bar in South Bend. He brought a handgun into the establishment and eventually placed it in a friend's purse. Tucker, accompanied by his girlfriend, also had been drinking in the bar. Tucker was angry at Martin for allegedly making some comments about Tucker's girlfriend.
Shortly before the shooting, Martin was in the rear area of the bar with Tucker. When Martin said he was going to leave, Tucker pushed him into the coat rack. Martin soon retrieved his handgun and walked over to Tucker, who was standing at the bar. Martin asked to talk to him, and Tucker started walking in Martin's direction. Martin shot Tucker twice. Tucker fell on Martin after the second shot and died shortly thereafter.
Martin's defense rested on the theory that Tucker had struck Martin immediately before Martin fired the first shot. The defense produced witnesses who testified that Tucker was a large man with a violent nature, whereas Martin was short and suffered from numerous illnesses, including serious heart disease. Martin testified that Tucker attacked him first during their last encounter and that he shot because he feared for his life.
Martin's account of the skirmish was not supported by any other witness. A few witnesses did not see either the original encounter at the coat rack or the later confrontation ending in the gun shots. Several others testified unequivocally that Martin fired the shots without provocation. Although one witness testified that Tucker did land some blows between the shots, Martin's conduct was not justified. Self-defense may not be asserted by one who was the aggressor in the confrontation which resulted in injury. Davis v. State (1983), Ind., 456 N.E.2d 405; see also Brumfield...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hoemig v. State
...evidence about prior acts which can be specifically connected to the offense at bar may be admitted. Id. See also Martin v. State (1987), Ind., 512 N.E.2d 850, 852, and Ramos v. State (1982), Ind., 433 N.E.2d 757, 760, reh. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Ange......
-
Brewer v. State
...for an otherwise criminal act. IND.CODE ANN. § 35-41-3-2 (West 1986); see also Holder, 571 N.E.2d at 1253 (quoting Martin v. State (1987), Ind., 512 N.E.2d 850, 851). Appellant had an opportunity to present his self-defense claim to the jury. It is unclear why appellant believed that unwant......
-
Bockting v. State
...to acquittal as a matter of law because the prosecution failed to negate any of the elements of his self-defense claim. In Martin v. State (1987), Ind., 512 N.E.2d 850, our supreme court addressed the issue Bockting raises. The court To prevail on a claim of self-defense in a homicide prose......
-
Jordan v. State
...State to disprove one of the elements of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt for the defendant's claim to fail. See Martin v. State (1987), Ind., 512 N.E.2d 850, 851. Substantial evidence demonstrated both that the defendant participated willingly in the violence and that he did not have......