Estes v. State, 1282S479

• Decision Date: 22 July 1983
• Docket Number: No. 1282S479,1282S479
• Citation: 451 N.E.2d 313
• Parties: James Arnold ESTES, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 313

451 N.E.2d 313

James Arnold ESTES, Appellant, v.STATE of Indiana, Appellee.

No. 1282S479.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

July 22, 1983.

Hugh G. Baker, Jr., Indianapolis, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Richard E. Hagenmaier, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

GIVAN, Chief Justice.

Appellant was convicted in a bench trial of attempted murder, a Class A felony, and carrying a handgun without a license, a Class A misdemeanor.He was sentenced to thirty (30) years and one (1) year for the respective offenses.The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently.

Appellant claims the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction for attempted murder.At trial, appellant presented evidence of "sudden heat."He contends the State failed to rebut the mitigating factor of sudden heat resulting in an evidential insufficiency to sustain a conviction for attempted murder.

Sudden heat is a mitigating factor in conduct that would otherwise be murder.Palmer v. State, (1981) Ind., 425 N.E.2d 640.It is not an element of voluntary manslaughter.Palmer, supra.When the presence of sudden heat is introduced into the case, the State carries the burden of negating the presence of sudden heat beyond a reasonable doubt.Palmer, supra.The State may meet the burden by rebutting the defendant's evidence or by affirmatively showing in its case-in-chief the defendant was not acting in sudden heat when the killing occurred.Palmer, supra.Whether or not defendant acted under sudden heat is a question for the jury to resolve.Dunn v. State, (1982) Ind., 439 N.E.2d 165.

The evidence reveals appellant arrived at a party where four hundred (400) to six hundred (600)people were in attendance.He engaged in a disagreement with the doorman about the price and number of admission tickets he purchased and the change he received.After entering the residence, he complained about the drink he purchased.To placate him and avoid trouble, the "host" of the party poured appellant a fresh drink.Appellant asked a young woman to dance.When she refused appellant became argumentative.Brewer, the victim, interceded on her behalf.One witness testified Brewer stated to appellant, "you ain't got to act like that, we're here to have a good time."Another witness testified Brewer stated, "You don't have to do that, man."Stating "do you know who I am?", appellant struck Brewer.Brewer returned the blow.As a third person grabbed Brewer and asked him what was occurring, appellant stated, "I'll kill you, M***** F*****."Appellant drew a gun, dropped it and picked it up again.Appellant fired the gun saying he would kill everyone there including the victim.The bullet hit Brewer in the left side.Brewer ran through another room on the second floor, jumped over a bannister to the first floor and exited the residence.Appellant pursued Brewer throughout the residence, firing at the victim and randomly into the crowd.Two witnesses testified appellant stated he wanted to find the victim to finish killing him.Appellant left the scene at the host's request.Two men, apparently appellant's companions, drew guns, "covered" him and left with him.Brewer was hospitalized for three to four weeks due to the injuries he sustained.Another person was grazed in the head by a bullet.

The State sufficiently negated the factor of sudden heat by presenting the above recited facts in its case-in-chief.We believe this evidence allowed the jury to reasonably find appellant guilty of attempted murder.

Appellant claims the presumptive sentence of thirty (30) years is manifestly unreasonable.He requests we review his sentence...