Minter v. State, 49S00-9409-CR-892
| Decision Date | 05 July 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 49S00-9409-CR-892,49S00-9409-CR-892 |
| Citation | 653 N.E.2d 1382 |
| Parties | George MINTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Belle T. Choate, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Pamela Carter, Atty. Gen., Janet L. Parsanko, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
On appeal is whether sufficient evidence supports Minter's convictions for attempted murder, a Class A felony, and theft, a Class D felony. We hold that both convictions are supported by sufficient evidence, and affirm.
On October 8, 1992, Jeffrey C. Taft worked as a security officer for Venture Stores, Inc. Taft observed George Minter placing two drills into a red satchel under his fatigue jacket. Taft followed Minter outside the store, identified himself as a security officer, and asked Minter to return to the store. Minter pushed Taft, and fled on foot. Taft pursued Minter first by automobile, and then on foot after locating him at the nearby Crosswinds Apartments. As Taft approached, Minter brandished a knife approximately four inches long, and threatened to stab Taft if he did not "get back." Taft drew his gun and ordered Minter to the ground. Minter knelt, but as Taft attempted to handcuff him, Minter turned and stabbed Taft in the back. The knife blade broke off in Taft's back. Minter then bit Taft and struck him. Minter took Taft's gun, picked up his field jacket and the red satchel, and fled. Officers subsequently apprehended Minter, and recovered the gun behind an apartment in the complex. After a jury trial, Minter was convicted of attempted murder and theft, and received sentences of eighty years (80) and three (3) years, to be served concurrently. 1
When reviewing insufficiency of evidence claims, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge credibility. Alfaro v. State (1985), Ind., 478 N.E.2d 670, 672. We consider only the evidence most favorable to the verdict, taking all reasonable and logical inferences from the evidence. Id. We will not overturn the verdict if it is supported by substantial evidence of probative value. Id.
To establish an attempt, the State must prove that the defendant acted with the culpability required, and that the defendant engaged in conduct constituting a substantial step toward commission of the crime. Harris v. State (1981), Ind., 425 N.E.2d 112, 115. To prove attempted murder, the State must prove that the defendant acted with specific intent to kill. Smith v. State (1984), Ind., 459 N.E.2d 355, 357.
Minter argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for attempted murder. Specifically, Minter claims that the evidence proves only that he intended to hurt Taft to effect an escape. We reject this argument. Taft testified at trial:
Mr. Minter had poked it [the knife] around my neck a couple times, held it to my throat and said, He said, "I'm serious, I'll cut you, I'll kill you." At that time I didn't release the gun to him and he took the knife and stabbed it into my left shoulder and I felt it hit the bone and then I heard the snap of it.
This evidence sufficiently supports the findings that Minter acted with specific intent to kill, and took a substantial step toward committing murder.
Minter also asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for theft, because the drills were not found on his person, and were discovered later in a different area of the Crosswinds Apartment complex, rather than the exact site where he was apprehended. Without discussion, Minter cites Gonzales v. State (1989), Ind., 532 N.E.2d 1167 and Loyd v. State (1980), Ind., 272 Ind. 404, 398 N.E.2d 1260, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 881, 101 S.Ct. 231, 66 L.Ed.2d 105, but we fail to see how these cases aid his argument.
Indiana Code § 35-43-4-2(a) provides in relevant part that
A person who...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crain v. State
...that evidence and those inferences, we find substantial evidence of probative value to support the judgment. Minter v. State, 653 N.E.2d 1382, 1383 (Ind.1995). Whether the defendant was so intoxicated that he could not form the mens rea required for the crime is a question for the trier of ......
-
Mitchem v. State
...intent to kill and (2) defendant engaged in conduct constituting a substantial step toward commission of the crime. Minter v. State, 653 N.E.2d 1382, 1383 (Ind.1995). "Intent may be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death or great bodily harm." Johnson v. ......
-
Cohen v. State
...engaged in conduct that constituted a substantial step toward the commission of the crime.8 IND. CODE § 35-41-5-1(a); Minter v. State, 653 N.E.2d 1382, 1383 (Ind.1995). "In Indiana, the law of attempt focuses on the substantial step the defendant has completed, not on what was left undone."......
-
Powers v. State
...that evidence and those inferences, we find substantial evidence of probative value to support the judgment. Minter v. State, 653 N.E.2d 1382, 1383 (Ind.1995). To prove that defendant acted knowingly, the State had to prove that he was aware of a high probability that his conduct would resu......