Al-Saud v. State, AL-SAU

Docket NºA
Citation658 N.E.2d 907
Case DateDecember 20, 1995
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 907

658 N.E.2d 907
Laith AL-SAUD, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 02S03-9505-JV-498.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Dec. 20, 1995.

Page 908

Jack A. Mochamer, P. Stephen Miller, Fort Wayne, for appellant.

Pamela Carter, Attorney General, Cynthia L. Ploughe, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, for appellee.

ON PETITION TO TRANSFER

SULLIVAN, Justice.

Resolving a conflict which has emerged in opinions of the Court of Appeals, we hold that a firearm need not be loaded to create a substantial risk of bodily injury under Indiana's criminal recklessness statute, Ind.Code § 35-42-2-2.

Background

On October 31, 1992, fourteen year old Laith Al-Saud and several of his friends were at a house party when Jeremy Smith and Eric Smith walked by the house. Al-Saud and others ran outside and confronted the Smiths. Al-Saud and Jeremy had an argument and Al-Saud's friends began to beat Jeremy. Upon freeing himself, Jeremy saw Al-Saud pull a revolver from his waistband and point it at Jeremy's body. Al-Saud stated, "I should shoot you. I should shoot you." Al-Saud pulled the trigger, but the gun did not discharge. Shortly thereafter, some adults arrived and ordered the group to disperse.

On November 6, 1992, while at a house party, Al-Saud pointed a gun at John Marynowski's head as he entered the room. Al-Saud said, "Hi, John" and put the gun away. John asked Al-Saud if he had any bullets for the gun, and Al-Saud pulled approximately three bullets from his pocket and showed them to John. Al-Saud also pointed a gun at Sarah Schopfer's head at the same party. On December 15, 1992, a delinquency petition was filed in the Allen Superior Court. On May 24, 1993, the trial court determined that Al-Saud would have been guilty of the crime of criminal recklessness if he were an adult and adjudicated Al-Saud a delinquent juvenile.

Al-Saud appealed. The Court of Appeals held that the State failed to sustain its burden of proving that Al-Saud was guilty of criminal recklessness beyond a reasonable doubt because it presented no evidence that the gun was loaded and therefore did not prove the substantial risk of bodily injury necessary to sustain the charge. Al-Saud v. State (1994), Ind.App., 638 N.E.2d 822, 824. The State seeks transfer arguing that the Court of Appeals erroneously determined that the State can not prevail on a criminal recklessness conviction unless it submits some evidence that a gun pointed at another individual is loaded.

Discussion

The statute at issue provides:

A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally performs:

(1) an act that creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person ... commits criminal recklessness, a Class B misdemeanor. However, the offense is a:

. . . . .

(2) Class D felony if it is committed while armed with a deadly weapon.

Ind.Code § 35-42-2-2(b) (1993). 1 A deadly weapon is defined by statute to include either a loaded or unloaded firearm. Ind.Code § 35-41-1-8.

When the State seeks to have a juvenile adjudicated to be delinquent for commiting an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult, the State must prove every element of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 368, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1074-75, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970); Warner v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 209, 258

Page 909

N.E.2d 860. Here, to show that the defendant committed criminal recklessness, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Al-Saud recklessly, knowingly or intentionally performed an act that created a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person while armed with a deadly weapon. Ind.Code § 35-42-2-2.

Resolving the claim of error requires us to make a determination as to whether the evidence presented at his trial was sufficient to sustain this burden. Our standard of review for appeals challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 practice notes
  • State v. Ciullo, AC 32550
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • 29 Enero 2013
    ...the creation of a substantial risk of physical injury, other jurisdictions have come to such a conclusion. See, e.g., Al-Saud v. State, 658 N.E.2d 907, 910 (Ind. 1995) (brandishing firearm, regardless of whether unloaded or loaded, can create substantial risk of bodily injury); Key v. Commo......
  • State v. Ciullo, No. 32550.
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • 29 Enero 2013
    ...the creation of a substantial risk of physical injury, other jurisdictions have come to such a conclusion. See, e.g., Al–Saud v. State, 658 N.E.2d 907, 910 (Ind.1995) (brandishing firearm, regardless of whether unloaded or loaded, can create substantial risk of bodily injury); Key v. Common......
  • State v. Carter, No. 32783.
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • 19 Marzo 2013
    ...to our own have acknowledged the dangerous situation that may arise from the pointing of a firearm at another person. Al–Saud v. State, 658 N.E.2d 907, 910 (Ind.1995) (“[t]he [141 Conn.App. 396]brandishing of a firearm in a congested area or during a dispute can create a variety of risks of......
  • State v. Carter, AC 32783
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • 19 Marzo 2013
    ...to our own have acknowledged the dangerous situation that may arise from the pointing of a firearm at another person. Al-Saud v. State, 658 N.E.2d 907, 910 (Ind. 1995) ("[t]he brandishing of a firearm in a congested area or during a dispute can create a variety of risks of bodily injury to ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
34 cases
  • State v. Ciullo, AC 32550
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • 29 Enero 2013
    ...the creation of a substantial risk of physical injury, other jurisdictions have come to such a conclusion. See, e.g., Al-Saud v. State, 658 N.E.2d 907, 910 (Ind. 1995) (brandishing firearm, regardless of whether unloaded or loaded, can create substantial risk of bodily injury); Key v. Commo......
  • State v. Ciullo, No. 32550.
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • 29 Enero 2013
    ...the creation of a substantial risk of physical injury, other jurisdictions have come to such a conclusion. See, e.g., Al–Saud v. State, 658 N.E.2d 907, 910 (Ind.1995) (brandishing firearm, regardless of whether unloaded or loaded, can create substantial risk of bodily injury); Key v. Common......
  • State v. Carter, No. 32783.
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • 19 Marzo 2013
    ...to our own have acknowledged the dangerous situation that may arise from the pointing of a firearm at another person. Al–Saud v. State, 658 N.E.2d 907, 910 (Ind.1995) (“[t]he [141 Conn.App. 396]brandishing of a firearm in a congested area or during a dispute can create a variety of risks of......
  • State v. Carter, AC 32783
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • 19 Marzo 2013
    ...to our own have acknowledged the dangerous situation that may arise from the pointing of a firearm at another person. Al-Saud v. State, 658 N.E.2d 907, 910 (Ind. 1995) ("[t]he brandishing of a firearm in a congested area or during a dispute can create a variety of risks of bodily injury to ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT