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
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
FLOYD E. CARR, )
) Supreme Court Cause Number
STATE OF INDIANA, )
APPEAL FROM THE LAKE SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Clarence D. Murray, Judge
Cause No. 45G02-9909-CF-160
ON DIRECT APPEAL
June 28, 2001
On the evening of September 1, 1999, Otis Elmore, Joann Jones, Daniel Valdez,
and others were sitting outside Elmores 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 Elmores 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.
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.
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 Carrs self-serving testimony, which
it apparently did. The evidence is sufficient to sustain the murder conviction.
We affirm the trial court.
SHEPARD, C.J., and DICKSON, SULLIVAN and BOEHM, JJ., concur.