Bunting v. State

15 Citing cases

  1. Abney v. State

    758 N.E.2d 72 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 4 times

    At trial, Abney tendered an instruction to the court regarding the element of causation which was modified by the trial court before being given. The instruction included language from both Micinski v. State, 487 N.E.2d 150 (Ind. 1986) and Bunting v. State, 731 N.E.2d 31 (Ind.Ct.App. 2000), trans. denied. These cases comprise the leading authority in Indiana on the level of causation required when an individual is charged with driving under the influence and being involved in an accident which leads to death.

  2. Holman v. State

    No. 24A-CR-13 (Ind. App. Dec. 13, 2024)

    And, [w]hile we seldom reverse for insufficient evidence, in every case where that issue is raised on appeal we have an affirmative duty to make certain that the proof at trial was, in fact, sufficient to support the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt." Bunting v. State, 731 N.E.2d 31, 35 (Ind.Ct.App. 2000), trans. denied. When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence underlying a criminal conviction, we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses.

  3. Cross-Malone v. State

    No. 23A-CR-1112 (Ind. App. Nov. 14, 2023)

    Rather, the State needed to prove only that (1) Cross-Malone operated the vehicle with an ACE of .08 or more, and (2) Cross-Malone's conduct in operating the vehicle caused the injury to Harris. Id.; see also Bunting v. State, 731 N.E.2d 31, 34 (Ind.Ct.App. 2000) (citing Micinski, 487 N.E.2d at 154) ("[I]f the driver's conduct caused the injury, she commits the crime; if someone else's conduct caused the injury, she is not guilty."), trans. denied.

  4. Kelley v. State

    No. 20A-CR-835 (Ind. App. Oct. 30, 2020)

    While we seldom reverse for insufficient evidence, we have an affirmative duty to make certain that the proof at trial is sufficient to support the verdict. Bean v. State, 818 N.E.2d 148, 150 (Ind.Ct.App. 2004) (citing Bunting v. State, 731 N.E.2d 31, 35 (Ind.Ct.App. 2000), trans. denied). [¶9] The lynchpin of this case and the convictions is Officer Maddix's identification of the driver of Johnson's car as Kelley.

  5. Mayhugh v. State

    16 N.E.3d 490 (Ind. App. 2014)

    But the mere suspicion or possibility of guilt is not sufficient to sustain a conviction. Bunting v. State, 731 N.E.2d 31, 35 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), trans. denied.

  6. Glenn v. State

    999 N.E.2d 859 (Ind. App. 2013)   Cited 11 times
    In Glenn v. State, 999 N.E.2d 859, 862 (Ind.Ct.App.2013), this court concluded that the defendant exhibited sufficient force to sustain her conviction for resisting law enforcement when the defendant “on more than one occasion, ‘aggressively’ tried to pull away” from the arresting officer.

    However, when evidence conflicts, as it does here, “we are bound to view only that evidence which is most favorable to the verdict and all reasonable inferences therefrom.” Bunting v. State, 731 N.E.2d 31, 33 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), trans. denied.

  7. Scruggs v. State

    883 N.E.2d 189 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 23 times

    See id. While we seldom reverse for insufficient evidence, in every case where that issue is raised on appeal we have an affirmative duty to make certain that the proof at trial was, in fact, sufficient to support the judgment beyond a reasonable doubt. See Bunting v. State, 731 N.E.2d 31, 35 (Ind.Ct.App. 2000), trans. denied.

  8. Hall v. State

    831 N.E.2d 823 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 4 times
    Holding that swinging a steak knife "less than one foot away from a victim was sufficient to establish criminal recklessness

    See id. While we seldom reverse for insufficient evidence, in every case where that issue is raised on appeal we have an affirmative duty to make certain that the proof at trial was, in fact, sufficient to support the judgment beyond a reasonable doubt. See Bunting v. State, 731 N.E.2d 31, 35 (Ind.Ct.App. 2000), trans. denied. The Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution protects an accused against conviction "except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged."

  9. Vandivier v. State

    822 N.E.2d 1047 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that the failure to make a proper objection at trial results in waiver of the issue on appeal

    Id. While we seldom reverse for insufficient evidence, in every case where that issue is raised on appeal we have an affirmative duty to make certain that the proof at trial was, in fact, sufficient to support the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. Bunting v. State, 731 N.E.2d 31, 35 (Ind.Ct.App. 2000), trans. denied.

  10. Bean v. State

    818 N.E.2d 148 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 12 times
    Finding no evidence of harm where officers discovered a used crack pipe in the defendant's vehicle, where two children also were present

    See id. While we seldom reverse for insufficient evidence, in every case where that issue is raised on appeal we have an affirmative duty to make certain that the proof at trial was, in fact, sufficient to support the judgment beyond a reasonable doubt. See Bunting v. State, 731 N.E.2d 31, 35 (Ind.Ct.App. 2000), trans. denied.