Larry D. Knox v. State of Indiana, 13 N.E.3d 899

On December 4, 2012, Larry D. Knox encountered a cat inside his home, kicked it multiple times, and one kick knocked out an upper left canine tooth.
Knox admitted he disliked cats, had no injuries from the cat, and joked about how far the tooth flew.
Animal Control Officer Miller and animal-care staff observed blood, the detached tooth, and a non‑feral, docile cat with signs of head injury.
Veterinarians’ x‑rays and testimony showed injuries consistent with a forceful kick while the cat was sitting or crouched; the tooth’s removal required substantial force.
The State charged Knox with torturing or mutilating a vertebrate animal (Class D felony); Knox claimed he kicked to ward off an alleged attack.
Following a bench trial, the court found Knox guilty and sentenced him to one year in the Department of Correction; Knox appealed claiming insufficient evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Knox knowingly or intentionally mutilated the cat	State: Knox’s admissions, the severity and nature of injuries, and surrounding facts support an inference of intent/knowledge	Knox: He acted to prevent injury — an affirmative defense that he reasonably believed force was necessary	Court: Evidence was sufficient; intent/knowledge may be inferred from conduct and circumstances; the self‑defense belief was not shown reasonable and depended on Knox’s credibility, which the factfinder rejected

Jones v. State, 783 N.E.2d 1132 (Ind. 2003) (standard for sufficiency review and reliance on probative evidence and reasonable inferences)
E.H. v. State, 764 N.E.2d 681 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (intent may be inferred from conduct and its natural sequence)
Hightower v. State, 866 N.E.2d 356 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (definitions and treatment of intentional and knowing conduct under Indiana law)