Floyd E. Carr v. State

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES:
CHARLES E. STEWART STEVE CARTER
Appellate Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Crown Point, IN 46307
ELLEN H. MEILAENDER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
FLOYD E. CARR, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
) Supreme Court Cause Number
v. )
) 45S00-0012-CR-792
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE LAKE SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Clarence D. Murray, Judge
Cause No. 45G02-9909-CF-160
ON DIRECT APPEAL
June 28, 2001
RUCKER, Justice
On the evening of September 1, 1999, Otis Elmore, Joann Jones, Daniel
Valdez, and others were sitting outside Elmore’s East Chicago, Indiana
apartment drinking beer. As Floyd Carr walked past the boisterous group,
Jones made a snide remark to him. Carr told them to leave him alone and
continued on his way. Carr returned a few minutes later with a gun and
confronted Elmore. As Valdez grabbed Elmore’s shoulder to turn him away,
Carr fired one shot, striking Elmore in the upper left back. A later
autopsy revealed that Elmore died as a result of a single gunshot wound to
the chest cavity.
The State charged Carr with murder. The jury convicted him as
charged, and the trial court sentenced him to fifty-five years imprisonment
with ten years suspended. In this direct appeal, Carr contends the
evidence is insufficient to support his murder conviction. We disagree and
therefore affirm.
Discussion
Carr contends the evidence is insufficient to support a knowing or
intentional killing because “he shot his gun straight up in the air to
scare Elmore, not to shoot him . . . .” Br. of Appellant at 7. When
reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we consider only the evidence
that supports the verdict and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom.
Johnson v. State, 743 N.E.2d 755, 757 (Ind. 2001). We do not reweigh the
evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Id. We uphold a
conviction if there is substantial evidence of probative value from which a
reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt. Id.A knowing or intentional killing may be inferred from the use of a
deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death. Hawkins v. State, 748
N.E.2d 362, 363 (Ind. 2001); Olive v. State, 696 N.E.2d 381, 382 (Ind.
1998). Further, firing a gun in the direction of the victim is sufficient
to infer a knowing or intentional killing. Hawkins, 748 N.E.2d at 363;
Olive, 696 N.E.2d at 382. In this case, several eyewitnesses testified
that Carr returned with a gun, confronted Elmore, fired one shot, and ran
away. Additionally, Valdez testified that Carr fired his gun in the
direction of Elmore. R. at 243. However, Carr testified that he fired his
gun straight up in the air to scare Elmore, not to shoot him. The jury was
free to disbelieve Carr’s self-serving testimony, which it apparently did.
The evidence is sufficient to sustain the murder conviction.
Conclusion
We affirm the trial court.
SHEPARD, C.J., and DICKSON, SULLIVAN and BOEHM, JJ., concur.