Napier v. State

8 Citing cases

  1. Lamb v. State

    162 Ind. App. 181 (Ind. Ct. App. 1974)   Cited 3 times

    The sole issue which appellant asserts on appeal is whether or not his conviction was sustained by sufficient evidence. The applicable rule for cases appealed on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence was well stated in the case of Napier v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 614, 298 N.E.2d 427, as follows: ". . . When the sufficiency of evidence is raised on appeal, this Court will neither weigh the evidence nor resolve questions concerning the [1] credibility of witnesses.

  2. James v. Warden

    3:22-CV-70-MGG (N.D. Ind. Oct. 14, 2022)

    Had trial counsel pursued such a strategy, the prosecution would have raised the compelling argument that the jury should infer intent to kill given the manner and circumstances in which James used the firearm. See Napier v. State, 298 N.E.2d 427, 428 (Ind. 1973) (โ€œIt is well settled in this state that malice may be inferred from the intentional use of a deadly weapon in a manner calculated or likely to produce death.โ€).

  3. Tucker v. State

    443 N.E.2d 840 (Ind. 1983)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that intent was properly transferred from the person against whom it was directed to the person actually injured to support a jury charge on attempted voluntary manslaughter

    We have found in similar cases that the defendant's intent is transferred from the person against whom it was directed to the person actually injured. See, Napier v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 614, 298 N.E.2d 427; Matthews v. State, (1958) 237 Ind. 677, 148 N.E.2d 334. Thus, there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict that defendant knowingly and intentionally attempted to kill Russell Beard. Defendant also claims that the trial court erred in imposing his sentence because the aggravating circumstances cited by the court were insufficient to support imposition of the maximum sentence authorized for a class B felony.

  4. Coleman v. State

    265 Ind. 357 (Ind. 1976)   Cited 15 times

    The jury could have concluded that the decedent was the intended victim or that he was killed in an attempt to shoot Gregory Cheeks. "Where a person intends to kill one person and kills another, either by wounding another than the person he aimed or struck at or by mistaking the person killed for the person he intended to kill, if the requisite intent and malice existed toward the person intended to be killed, the law transfers them to the person killed, and the crime is murder." 15 I.L.E. Homicide ยง 14 at 299 (1959); Napier v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 614, 298 N.E.2d 427. II.

  5. O'Hara v. State

    165 Ind. App. 11 (Ind. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 4 times

    We affirm. The constraints upon this Court's review of the sufficiency of evidence are summarized by the following passage from Napier v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 614, 298 N.E.2d 427, 427-428: "When the sufficiency of evidence is raised on appeal, this Court will neither weigh the evidence nor resolve questions concerning the [1] credibility of witnesses.

  6. Smith; Leavell v. State

    163 Ind. App. 425 (Ind. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 9 times

    Rather, we consider only the evidence most favorable to the state together with all reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom. If, from that viewpoint, there is substantial evidence of probative value to establish every material element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the verdict will not be disturbed. Napier v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 614, 298 N.E.2d 427. Further, where a conviction rests in whole or in part upon circumstantial evidence, it will not be disturbed unless this court can state as a matter of law that reasonable persons, whether they be jury or judge, could not form inferences with regard to each material element of the offense so as to ascertain defendants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

  7. Christian v. State

    163 Ind. App. 237 (Ind. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 5 times

    Rather, we consider only the evidence most favorable to appellee together with all reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom. If, from that viewpoint there is substantial evidence of probative value to establish every material element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the verdict will not be disturbed. Napier v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 614, 298 N.E.2d 427. Further, we are mindful that a conviction for burglary may be sustained on circumstantial evidence alone.

  8. Phillips; Wartham v. State

    162 Ind. App. 431 (Ind. Ct. App. 1974)   Cited 2 times

    There is further evidence that a man was seen running inside the club, that the rear door was partially opened and then slammed shut, and that two of the men were found hiding in the restroom. The test on appeal on sufficiency of the evidence was stated in the case of Napier v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 614, 298 N.E.2d 427, at pp. 427 and 428, as follows: ". . . When the sufficiency of evidence is raised on appeal, this Court will neither weigh the evidence nor resolve questions concerning the [1] credibility of witnesses.