Jimmy Lee Bush v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 49A05-1603-CR-470

Jimmy Lee Bush rented the front of a house and was responsible for utilities; he had modified outlets and used space heaters.
Landlady Tanya Wagner and her friend Danielle Matthews entered the home (through the back) to inspect it; Matthews later saw a shotgun in a bedroom closet during the search and thought she saw a gun in Bush’s pocket.
During a heated discussion about the property and deposit, Bush said “I got something for you bitches,” went into his bedroom, and Wagner heard a shotgun being pumped.
Wagner and Matthews feared Bush might shoot them and remained in the living room; Bush told them not to go anywhere and ordered Matthews to sit and be quiet.
Police were summoned, entered through the back, arrested Bush, and later found two loaded shotguns and a rifle in the home.
Bush was charged with two counts of Level 3 felony criminal confinement and one count of Level 4 firearm possession by a serious violent felon (later dismissed); convicted on the confinement counts and adjudicated a habitual offender; he appealed on sufficiency-of-the-evidence grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Bush)	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to convict Bush of Level 3 felony criminal confinement while armed	Evidence showed Bush armed with a shotgun (audibly racking it), threatened/ordered the women to stay, the women feared for their lives, and firearms were found in his bedroom; this supports knowing confinement without consent	The defense argued the State failed to prove confinement beyond a reasonable doubt and that the court’s statement suggested reasonable doubt	The court affirmed: evidence was sufficient to show Bush knowingly, while armed, substantially interfered with the women’s liberty and thus convicted him of Level 3 criminal confinement

In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) (establishes that guilt in criminal cases must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
Mallard v. State, 816 N.E.2d 53 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (statute requires only that defendant be armed with a deadly weapon, not that the weapon be used)
Ransom v. State, 850 N.E.2d 491 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (criminal confinement conviction sustained where victim did not feel free to leave and defendant had a gun)
Crider v. State, 984 N.E.2d 618 (Ind. 2013) (presumption that trial courts know and follow applicable law)
Dumas v. State, 803 N.E.2d 1113 (Ind. 2004) (same principle regarding trial court conduct)
Moran v. State, 622 N.E.2d 157 (Ind. 1993) (presumption that trial court acts correctly and follows law)