Defendant-Appellant, Carl Lilly, was convicted by a Delaware County jury оf murder. The trial court sentenced him to thir ty (80) years imprisonment. In this direct aрpeal, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidеnce supporting his conviction.
The evidence presented to the jury is as follows. Appellant lived in a boarding house located at 219 East Gilbert Street in Muncie, Indiana. On J anuary 16, 1985, Appellant and his fellow tenаnts were conversing and drinking in a common hallway of the boarding house. Appellant offered to trim the hair of a friend, William Nealon. The two еntered Appellant's room. While Appellant trimmed Nealon's hair, thе vie-tim entered Appellant's room. Appellant grabbed his shotgun and shоt the victim in the abdomen, resulting in his death.
William Nealon testified Appellant's door was not shut or latched, but was "almost to," indicating the door was ajar. Nealon stated Appellant left his door ajar unless he was slеeping or away. Nealon testified that when the victim entered Appellant's room, Appellant turned, grabbed a shot gun, cocked it, aimеd it at the victim, and pulled the trigger. He stated he did not hear any words exchanged between Appellant and the victim prior to the shooting.
Appellant testified he had told the victim earlier that day to get out of his room and to stay out. He claimed the victim came back, pushеd the door open, and threatened to beat Appellant. Aрpellant testified as to his knowledge of the victim's assaults on two other individuals. Further, Appellant was suffering from a broken ankle at the time. Appellant claims he feared for his life and shot the victim in self-defense.
Appellant argues on appeal that there was insufficient evidence presented to prove he was not acting in self-defensе. When sufficiency of the evidence is challenged, we do not rewеigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses, rather, we look to the evidence most favorable to the State along with all reаsonable inferences therefrom. Weekly v. State (1986), Ind.,
*25 In this case, the jury decided the State's еvidence was contrary to and more persuasive than Appellant's claim of self-defense. It was reasonable for the jury to cоnclude that Appellant was not justified in believing that deadly force was necessary to protect himself. The State properly negated beyond a reasonable doubt at least one of the elements of Appellant's self-defense claim. Accordingly, the trial court is affirmed.