James McKinney v. State of Indiana

CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 31, 1998
Docket49S00-9702-CR-122
StatusPublished

This text of James McKinney v. State of Indiana (James McKinney v. State of Indiana) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
James McKinney v. State of Indiana, (Ind. 1998).

Opinion

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Aaron E. Haith Jeffrey A. Modisett

Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Andrew L. Hedges

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

In The

INDIANA SUPREME COURT

                JAMES McKINNEY, )

Defendant-Appellant, )

)

v. ) 49S00-9702-CR-122

) STATE OF INDIANA, )

Plaintiff-Appellee. )

                         ________________________________________________  

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable Nancy L. Broyles, Master Commissioner

Cause No. 49G04-9507-CF-102627

                       _________________________________________________

On Direct Appeal

DICKSON, J.

The defendant contends that his murder conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence.  When presented with this issue, we will affirm the conviction if, considering only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict and without reweighing evidence or assessing witness credibility, we conclude that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.   Mayo v. State , 681 N.E.2d 689, 691 (Ind. 1997).  

The evidence included the testimony of two witnesses who observed the defendant shoot the victim.  Two witnesses heard the defendant admit the shooting.  The defendant walked up to the victim, checked him for weapons, and then repeatedly shot him when he noticed that the victim was in possession of a handgun.  The evidence does not demonstrate that the victim ever attempted to use the handgun to place the defendant in fear of great bodily harm or death.  The defendant argues that inconsistencies render the testimony inherently dubious and that the State failed to rebut his claim of self-defense.  

Applying our standard of review, we find that a reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.  

Judgment affirmed.

SHEPARD, C.J., and SULLIVAN, SELBY, and BOEHM, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mayo v. State
681 N.E.2d 689 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
James McKinney v. State of Indiana, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-mckinney-v-state-of-indiana-ind-1998.