Ronk v. State, 1083S368

• Decision Date: 29 November 1984
• Docket Number: No. 1083S368,1083S368
• Citation: 470 N.E.2d 1337
• Parties: Raymond RONK, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 1337

470 N.E.2d 1337

Raymond RONK, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).

No. 1083S368.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Nov. 29, 1984.

James A. Greco, Greco, Gouveia, Miller, Pera & Bishop, Merrillville, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Michael Gene Worden, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

HUNTER, Justice.

The defendant, Raymond Ronk, was convicted by a jury of murder, Ind.Code Sec. 35-42-1-1 (Burns 1979 Repl.), and was sentenced to the Indiana Department of Correction for a term of thirty-five years. He now contends that there was not sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict, and that the trial court should be ordered to enter a verdict of guilty on the lesser included charge of voluntary manslaughter.

A summary of the facts from the record most favorable to the state reveals that defendant and the victim, Rudy Azcona, worked together at U.S. Steel and were considered to be best friends. Around noon, November 29, 1982, the two men went to Patricia Craft's home in Gary. Azcona then went next door to see another friend, Rita Alverez. Alverez testified that Azcona was intoxicated and was carrying a gun when he came to her house. About fifteen minutes later, defendant also came to Alverez's house and he, too, appeared to be intoxicated. Defendant and Azcona laughed and joked together and were playing with the gun.

A few minutes later, Patricia Craft came over from her house and asked defendant and Azcona for some money to buy cigarettes. Defendant pulled out his money and Azcona grabbed a twenty-dollar bill out of his hand. Defendant told Azcona to return the twenty dollars and started yelling at him. The two men started wrestling and at some point defendant grabbed Azcona's gun and told Azcona to give back the money or he would "put him in hell." Then Azcona put his hand out to give the money back and defendant shot him. After Azcona fell to the floor, defendant bent down and took his wallet apparently believing that police would be unable to identify the body without an I.D.

Defendant went out to his truck and gave the gun to Craft. He told her that if "anything comes down be cool." Because the police arrived and blocked the driveway, defendant drove his truck over the lawn and out into the street. The police pursued defendant and the chase ended when defendant's truck struck a guardrail and he was knocked unconscious.

Defendant contends that he presented evidence of the mitigating factor of sudden heat which the state failed to rebut and that therefore there was insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction for murder. We review this issue as we do all sufficiency claims; on appeal the reviewing court does not weigh the evidence or judge credibility. We are constrained to consider only that evidence most favorable to the state, together with all reasonable and logical inferences to be drawn therefrom. If there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the conclusion of the trier of fact, the verdict will not be overturned. McNary v. State, (1984) Ind., 460 N.E.2d 145; Tunstall v. State, (1983) Ind., 451 N.E.2d 1077; Fielden v. State, (1982) Ind., 437 N.E.2d 986.

It is well settled that both murder and voluntary manslaughter can be proved by evidence of the knowing or intentional killing of another human being and that sudden heat is a mitigating factor in conduct that would otherwise be murder. Estes v. State, (1983) Ind., 451 N.E.2d 313; Palmer v. State, (1981) Ind., 425 N.E.2d 640; Begley v. State, (1981) Ind., 416 N.E.2d 824. When the presence of sudden heat is introduced into the case, the state carries the burden of negating the presence of sudden heat...