Darrell Smith v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A02-1606-CR-1392
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jan 31, 2017Background
- Darrell Smith and Rebecca West lived together ~20 years in an Indianapolis house with a front porch swing and low shrubs in front of the porch.
- On Sept. 4, 2015, after a domestic dispute and while Smith had been drinking, West sat on the porch swing and Smith stood in the doorway about five feet away.
- Smith produced a handgun and fired at a shrub located approximately three to four feet from where West was sitting; the shot was loud and hurt West’s ears.
- West called police, consented to a search, and officers later found the handgun hidden in a kitchen cabinet.
- The State charged Smith with Level 5 felony criminal recklessness and Level 6 felony pointing a firearm; the pointing charge was dismissed, Smith was convicted of Level 5 criminal recklessness at bench trial, and he appealed claiming insufficient evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Smith committed Level 5 criminal recklessness by shooting a firearm into a place where people are likely to gather and creating a substantial risk of bodily injury | The State: Smith fired a gun from the porch toward shrubs immediately in front of a porch where West sat ~5 ft away, creating a substantial risk and shooting into a place people gather | Smith: Firing at the shrub in front of the porch is not the same as shooting "into" the porch; evidence did not show substantial risk to another person | Court affirmed: proximity, trajectory, and ricochet risk supported a reasonable factfinder concluding Smith created a substantial risk and shot into a place where people are likely to gather |
Key Cases Cited
- Gray v. State, 957 N.E.2d 171 (Ind. 2011) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003 (Ind. 2009) (affirming that appellate review considers evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the conviction)
- Smith v. State, 688 N.E.2d 1289 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (assessing proximity of potential victims to determine substantial risk)
- Upp v. State, 473 N.E.2d 1030 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985) (recognizing ricochet and inaccuracy of bullets as creating substantial risk)
- Boushehry v. State, 648 N.E.2d 1174 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (insufficient evidence where defendant fired across a vacant lot)
- Elliott v. State, 560 N.E.2d 1266 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (insufficient evidence where shots were aimed at uninhabited fields and woodlands)