Pacheco v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals

Pacheco v. State

444 N.E.2d 343, 1983 Ind. App. LEXIS 2557

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 27, 1983

DocketNo. 3-882A220

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 444 N.E.2d 343 (Pacheco v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pacheco v. State, 444 N.E.2d 343, 1983 Ind. App. LEXIS 2557 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

GARRARD, Judge.

Appellant Pacheco was tried by the court and was convicted of attempted battery of a police officer, a Class D felony. He was given a two year suspended sentence. His appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to establish the necessary intent for battery.

The events in question occurred on New Year’s Eve and the early hours of New Year’s Day, 1982. Pacheco apparently became very depressed over news that he was being deported. He took a .22 rifle into the back yard of the house where he was living and threatened suicide. The police were summoned and then there followed a period when Pacheco fired the rifle into the air, into rooms in the house, and through windows. At one point he fired three times through the door. These shots narrowly missed Police Officer Reinbold and were the foundation for the charge.

Pacheco argues that while he was clearly guilty of conduct amounting to criminal recklessness, there was insufficient evidence from which the court could have concluded that he had the necessary intent to commit battery. See IC 35-41-5-1 [attempt], IC 35-42-2-1 [battery], and IC 35-41-2-2 [defining intentionally and knowingly]. We disagree.

There was evidence that Pacheco had earlier pointed the rifle at police officers in the house, had directed them to give him their guns and had threatened to shoot them if they did not. At one point he threatened to shoot his friend Claussen if Claussen came any closer to him. There was evidence that Officer Reinbold was visible to Pacheco when the three shots were fired. He heard the bullets whiz by him. They were apparently fired at body heighth through the upper half of the storm door. These facts together with the inference generally available from the use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death, Hemphill v. State (1979), Ind., 387 N.E.2d 1324, are sufficient to establish that Pacheco intended to shoot Reinbold or was, at least, aware of a [344]*344high probability that by so shooting, one of the bullets would strike the officer. Under the statutes already cited, that was sufficient.

Affirmed.

HOFFMAN, P.J., and STATON, J., concur.

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

GARRARD, Judge.

Appellant Pacheco was tried by the court and was convicted of attempted battery of a police officer, a Class D felony. He was given a two year suspended sentence. His appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to establish the necessary intent for battery.

The events in question occurred on New Year’s Eve and the early hours of New Year’s Day, 1982. Pacheco apparently became very depressed over news that he was being deported. He took a .22 rifle into the back yard of the house where he was living and threatened suicide. The police were summoned and then there followed a period when Pacheco fired the rifle into the air, into rooms in the house, and through windows. At one point he fired three times through the door. These shots narrowly missed Police Officer Reinbold and were the foundation for the charge.

Pacheco argues that while he was clearly guilty of conduct amounting to criminal recklessness, there was insufficient evidence from which the court could have concluded that he had the necessary intent to commit battery. See IC 35-41-5-1 [attempt], IC 35-42-2-1 [battery], and IC 35-41-2-2 [defining intentionally and knowingly]. We disagree.

There was evidence that Pacheco had earlier pointed the rifle at police officers in the house, had directed them to give him their guns and had threatened to shoot them if they did not. At one point he threatened to shoot his friend Claussen if Claussen came any closer to him. There was evidence that Officer Reinbold was visible to Pacheco when the three shots were fired. He heard the bullets whiz by him. They were apparently fired at body heighth through the upper half of the storm door. These facts together with the inference generally available from the use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death, Hemphill v. State (1979), Ind., 387 N.E.2d 1324, are sufficient to establish that Pacheco intended to shoot Reinbold or was, at least, aware of a [344]*344high probability that by so shooting, one of the bullets would strike the officer. Under the statutes already cited, that was sufficient.

Affirmed.

HOFFMAN, P.J., and STATON, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

444 N.E.2d 343, 1983 Ind. App. LEXIS 2557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pacheco-v-state-indctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack