Watkins v. State, 783S267

• Decision Date: 12 October 1984
• Docket Number: No. 783S267,783S267
• Citation: 468 N.E.2d 1049
• Parties: Stanley WATKINS, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 1049

468 N.E.2d 1049

Stanley WATKINS, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).

No. 783S267.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Oct. 12, 1984.

John P. Avery, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Ind., Latriealle Wheat, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

HUNTER, Justice.

The defendant, Stanley Watkins, was charged with attempted murder and burglary and was convicted at a bench trial of burglary, a Class A felony, Ind.Code Sec. 35-43-2-1 (Burns 1984 Supp.). He was sentenced to the Indiana Department of Correction for a period of twenty-five years. In this direct appeal he claims there was not sufficient evidence on all the elements of the offense to support the verdict of the jury.

A brief summary of the facts from the record most favorable to the state shows that Mary Jones, a recent widow, was awakened by the sound of papers rattling in her bedroom closet at approximately 5:30 a.m. one morning. She turned over in bed and saw a man holding a long knife come toward her. He threatened to "cut her heart out" if she screamed, but she screamed anyway. The man stabbed Jones in the left chest and in the back and Jones hit the man with a chair.

Brenda Dye, Jones's niece, was sleeping in the den and ran to her aunt's bedroom when she heard the screams. Dye tried to grab the man and in the struggle knocked a plate from the wall. She picked up a piece of the broken plate and began stabbing the man with it. Eventually, the man ran toward the back door in an effort to escape but could not get out because there were many locks on the door. The man then ran down the basement stairs. The police arrested defendant a few minutes later while he was sitting on a porch a short distance from Jones's house. He was bleeding from several wounds and a trail of blood led directly to Jones's basement window. The window had been broken inward where the glass fell on a couch. A television set was found on the floor rather than on its stand. Defendant testified that he and three companions had been drinking beer and wine and smoking marijuana prior to the commission of the crime.

Defendant first contends that he presented sufficient evidence to show that he was too intoxicated at the time of the crime to have formed the requisite intent. Defendant and two of his companions all testified that they and another young man had been drinking beer and wine and smoking marijuana from approximately 8:30 p.m. until about 5:00 a.m. shortly prior to the time of the instant crime. One of defendant's companions testified that defendant may have consumed as much as nine beers, some wine and two marijuana cigarettes. Both companions testified that defendant was intoxicated that night.

It is true that a defendant in Indiana can offer a defense of voluntary intoxication to any crime. Terry v. State, (1984) --- Ind. ----, 465 N.E.2d 1085. However, the evidence must show that a defendant was incapable of performing acts which require a significant degree of physical or intellectual skills before a trier of fact is justified in finding that he was not responsible for his actions because of his intoxication. Id. at 1088.

In this case, defendant was able to climb through a basement window two times, run up and down the stairs in the house, converse with his companions, threaten the victim with a knife, and search through a closet for valuables. This was sufficient evidence before the trier of fact that defendant had the requisite mens rea for Class A burglary.

Defendant also argues that since the court found him not guilty on the attempted murder charge because of lack of intent, he could not have had the requisite intent to commit the burglary. There is no merit to this contention. The crimes of attempted murder and burglary involve different actions and therefore different intentions relevant to the acts involved. The court here explained: "I don't really think he attempted to kill the woman either. I think she was injured in the melee as a result of the surprise and the shock of finding somebody in her house ...." This finding was not based upon defend...