Oates v. State
Decision Date | 13 January 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 181S8,181S8 |
Citation | 429 N.E.2d 949 |
Parties | Herbert OATES, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
George K. Shields, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Aimee L. Kolze, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Defendant (Appellant) was convicted of Murder, Ind.Code § 35-42-1-1 (Burns 1979) and Battery, Ind.Code § 35-42-2-1 (Burns 1979) and sentenced to forty (40) years imprisonment upon the Murder conviction to run concurrently with five (5) years imprisonment upon the Battery conviction. This direct appeal presents two issues:
(1) Whether the evidence is sufficient to support either verdict.
(2) Whether Defendant was denied his lawful presumption of innocence.
The evidence most favorable to the State reveals that on April 8, 1980, Mary Leavell and Beulah Brasher were sitting in the kitchen where Mary lived with her mother, Elizabeth Washington, when Defendant shot the lock off the apartment door with a shotgun. Upon hearing the blast, the women ran into the bedroom, to awaken Elizabeth Washington who was sleeping. Beulah called to her that "somebody shot the door open" and she and Mary then lay next to one another on the floor and parallel with the bed. Defendant followed them and shot and killed Mary. Mrs. Washington fled from the room and, as she did, Beulah said, "Washington, Mr. Oates shot your daughter."
Beulah remained on the floor for awhile. Then she arose and saw Defendant, who pointed the shotgun at her. She fell back on the floor, and Defendant shot her in the foot. Defendant then left the apartment and departed in his automobile. 1
Defendant was charged with the Murder of Mary Leavell, Ind.Code § 35-42-1-1 (Burns 1979) and the Attempted Murder, Ind.Code § 35-42-1-1; § 35-41-5-1 of Beulah Brasher. Defendant argues as follows:
Defendant acknowledges our standard of review for sufficiency challenges but urges us to adopt the "rational trier of fact" standard of review enunciated in Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 318-19, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560, 573. We rejected that standard in Norris v. State (1981) Ind., 419 N.E.2d 129, 134.
From his argument, we discern that Defendant asks us to reweigh the evidence with respect to whether or not his conduct The trier of fact may infer Defendant's state of mind from the circumstances surrounding the killing and the method of killing. Blood v. State (1980) Ind., 398 N.E.2d 671, 674. Under our prior penal code (since repealed) we allowed the jury to infer the malice required for First Degree Murder from the defendant's deliberate use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death. Loyd v. State (1980) Ind., 398 N.E.2d 1260, 1264, cert. denied (1980) 449 U.S. 881, 101 S.Ct. 231, 66 L.Ed.2d 105.
was knowing or intentional as those terms are defined in Ind.Code § 35-41-2-2 (Burns 1979), which we cannot do. Doty v. State (1981) Ind., 422 N.E.2d 653, 655. 2
Mrs. Washington testified that her daughter had been living with Defendant but had terminated the relationship on March 17, 1980. Beulah Brasher related the incident, which occurred on the afternoon of the homicide, as follows:
From such evidence the jury could have found that something "cracked" as Defendant claims, or that he intentionally used a shotgun to break into an apartment and to kill the victim in response to her rejection. Additionally, Defendant's departure from the scene in his automobile with the shotgun could reasonably give rise to an inference, by the jury, that Defendant understood what he was doing.
With respect to the Battery conviction, the jury faced a similar choice. They were justified in inferring from Defendant's aiming the gun at Beulah Brasher and pulling the trigger that he was aware that such action would result in bodily harm to her. See Jones v. State (1970) 253 Ind. 480, 482, 255 N.E.2d 219, 220; Gilman v. State (1979) Ind.App., 389 N.E.2d 327, 331 (trans. denied); Padgett v. State (1978) Ind.App., 380 N.E.2d 96, 98.
We find that the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions.
Defendant contends that he was denied his lawful presumption of innocence because the jury failed to reconcile all the evidence with the theory of his innocence as required by law:
"The jury in this case could only have concluded that defendant Oates was guilty of the offenses charged by resolving any doubts and inconsistencies in the evidence against defendant, Oates, contrary to the presumption of his innocence."
In Goodloe v. State (1967) 248 Ind. 411, 419, 229 N.E.2d 626, 638, which Defendant cites, we stated:
"It is also a fundamental rule of criminal law that all doubts must be resolved in favor of the innocence of the accused."
We also stated:
"In view of the record before us in this case, the argument made by the State that appellant's flight is clear evidence of his guilt is not persuasive.
As Goodloe demonstrates, the presumption of innocence, to which Defendant refers, does not modify our standard of appellate review with respect to the sufficiency of the evidence. The presumption does not follow Defendant on appeal. Williams v. State (1980) Ind., 406 N.E.2d 241, 243.
The presumption of innocence, which belongs to every criminal defendant at the outset of a trial, is a concept for protecting the accused against being convicted upon doubtful evidence. It operates as an obligation upon the jury which is explained to it by the trial judge and instructs as to what it...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Greider v. Duckworth
...the jury is permitted to infer malice from the intentional use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death. Oates v. State, 429 N.E.2d 949, 951 (Ind.1982); Bond v. State, 403 N.E.2d 812, 820 (Ind.1980); Zickefoose v. State, 270 Ind. 618, 388 N.E.2d 507, 509 (Ind.1979). 3 And, the j......
-
Canaan v. Davis, Cause No. IP 97-1847-C H/K (S.D. Ind. 1/10/2003)
...See Washington v. State, 570 N.E.2d 21, 23 (Ind. 1991) (state court had previously "rejected" Jackson standard); Oates v. State, 429 N.E.2d 949, 950 (Ind. 1982) (same); Norris v. State, 419 N.E.2d 129, 134 (Ind. 1981) (declining to adopt Jackson Both before and after this line of cases, how......
-
Washington v. State
...(1979), 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560. However, this Court, as appellant admits, rejected this request in Oates v. State (1982), Ind., 429 N.E.2d 949 and Norris v. State (1981), 275 Ind. 608, 419 N.E.2d 129. We fail to find appellant's position persuasive. Thus this issue is n......
-
Green v. State
...given by the trial court, this was a proper and correct statement of the law and was a proper jury instruction. Oates v. State, (1982) Ind., 429 N.E.2d 949. The trial court did not err by giving Instruction Finally, Appellant claims that there was not sufficient evidence before the jury to ......