This is аn appeal from a judgment convicting the appellant of murder in the second degree and sentencing him tо imprisonment in the Indiana State Prison for life. The error assigned is the overruling of appellant’s motion for new trial.
Aрpellant’s motion for new trial challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. For the most рart, the essential facts are not in dispute, but when we examine the evidence on appeal after а conviction to see if it sustains the verdict, we only consider the evidence most favorable to the State, inсluding all reasonable and logical inferences that may be drawn therefrom.
Kallas
v.
State
(1949),
At about 11:45 P.M., Central Standard Time, on July 17, 1955, appellant was playing cards in a club at 2500 Adams Street, Gary, Indiana. Eloma Taylor, a waitress in the club, had been his girl friend fоr several months. There was a quarrel between the appellant and Miss Taylor. He struck her and there was a fight during which her blouse was torn and her clothes disarrayed. Shortly before the fight appellant, who needed more monеy to continue playing cards, had sent his wife home to get some. After the fight he left and went to his home which was less than a block away. There he picked up a loaded pistol, put it in his pocket and returned to the club.
As he approached the entrance to the club Eloma Taylor was leaving in order to change her clothes. Thеre was another argument and another fight, which was observed by two witnesses. During the course of the fight there was one shot and Eloma Taylor fell, saying, “Oh you shot me.” The medical examiner testified that the cause of death was hemorrhаging due to a gunshot wound. The bullet entered the body in the lower left abdominal wall and traveled slightly downward and across the right side of the body.
According to appellant’s testimony at trial, he took the gun from his home because he had run оut of money, and he decided to pawn it and “get back in the game.” The butt end of the gun was sticking out of his right-hand pockеt, and, when he came close to Eloma and asked to inspect a bruise which she had received on the hеad during the previous fight, she seized the gun with her left hand and pointed it at him. He immediately grabbed her arm and twisted, and the gun went off.
*507
*506
As against this defense that the shooting was not
*507
his act the jury could have inferred, as noted above, that the gun was loaded when the accused took it from his hоuse, thus throwing substantial doubt on his explanation of his reason for taking it. Also, as noted, after the shot Eloma accusеd him of shooting her. In a statement made to police officers on the night of the incident, the appellant said,
.
. we had a fight on the sidewalk and I shot her.” It should be noted in this regard that these words came in response to the question as to when he had last seen Eloma Taylor, and that the same written statement contained an assertion that “Shе grabbed the gun from me and I tried to get to take gun away from her, and the gun went off.” However, the jury was not bound to acсept as true his self-serving statements contained in the confession.
Kallas
v.
State
(1949),
No witness who observed the second fight saw the gun аt any time and it was never recovered or put in evidence. However, the appellant both at trial and in his сonfession admitted that the gun which fired the shot was his. The medical examiner found no powder burns on the hands, clothes or body of the deceased. A photograph of the body introduced in evidence shows the bullet wound well over оn the left side. Although there is no evidence whether the decedent was right or left handed, she was not a large womаn, nor were her arms large and muscular. The jury was amply justified in finding that appellant’s testimony that decedent shot herself with a twelve inch pistol held in her left hand to cause the bullet to enter her body and take the course it did was so difficult and unreasonable that his explanation of the shooting was false.
*508
*507
Malice may be inferred from the intentional use of a deadly weapon in such a manner as likely to cause
*508
death.
Landreth
v.
State
(1930),
Appellant complains in the Argument section of his brief that the State was guilty of gross misconduct in its cross-examination of him as to prior arrests, convictions, and one cutting assault and battery on one Thomas Antes. Appellant’s trial counsel was familiar with the general rule that an arrest without a conviction is not a proper subject of cross-examination to affect the credibility of the witness.
Petro
v.
State
(1933),
When appellant denied intentionally shooting the decedent, he placed in issue his intent. Thе State would have been entitled to prove by independent evidence appellant had committed а felonious assault on Antes as relevant to the issue of appellant’s intent in the crime charged.
Kallas
v.
State
(1949),
There was no error in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
Achor, C. J., Arterburn, Landis and Bobbitt, JJ., concur.
Note. — Reported in