Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1

Murder under § 35-42-1-1(1) requires knowingly or intentionally killing another human being.

Williams v. State · filed 1979-10-02(1)

The culpability for the commission of murder consists of knowingly or intentionally killing another human being. Ind.Code § 35-42-1-1.

For attempted murder under § 35-42-1-1, the intent-to-kill element is satisfied if the accused intended to kill someone, even if the person attacked was someone else.

Norris v. State · filed 1981-04-16

Under the doctrine of transferred intent, the essential element is present if the accused intended to kill someone.

Section 35-42-1-1(1) does not require the victim of murder to be a law enforcement officer.

Smith v. State · filed 1981-07-06(1)

Under Ind. Code §§ 35-42-1-1(1) and 35-41-5-1, the elements of attempted murder are: (1) the knowing or intentional (2) taking of a "substantial step toward" (3) the killing of (4) another (5) human being. It is clear, then, that the battery described in that portion of the statute quoted in Smith's tendered instruction is not an inherently included offense of attempted murder. Obviously, the murder and attempt statutes do not require that the intended victim be a law enforcement officer.

Section 35-42-1-1 does not make the absence of sudden heat an element of murder.

Palmer v. State · filed 1981-09-17(1)

There is no implied element of the absence of sudden heat in the crime of murder.

Section 35-42-1-1(1) does not make malice an element of murder, so the prosecution need not prove malice to make a prima facie case.

Wolfe v. State · filed 1981-10-05(1)

We do note that our statute is similar to New York’s second degree murder statute to the extent that malice is no longer specified as an element of murder. Thus the prosecution is no longer required to prove malice in order to make a prima facie case of murder against the accused.

The murder offense requires proof of a killing; cause of death is not a separate element absent a suggestion of intervening cause.

Wilson v. State · filed 1982-03-11

The cause of death is not an element of the offense itself; the element in question is the killing, absent a suggestion of intervening cause.

Section 35-42-1-1 does not include malice as an element of murder, so an instruction on malice is irrelevant to attempted murder.

Haggenjos v. State · filed 1982-11-04

The record shows that the trial court gave final instructions, without objection, which explained the elements of attempted murder based upon the elements contained in the current Attempt and Murder statutes, in which malice is no longer an element. In light of the statutory definition of the charged offense, Defendant's tendered instructions upon the subject of malice would only have confused the jury by injecting an irrelevant issue into the case; consequently, we find no error in their refusal.

Murder requires evidence that the defendant intended to kill or knew there was a high probability that the conduct would cause death.

Robinson v. State · filed 1983-09-23(1)

In order to sustain a conviction for murder there must be evidence that the defendant had a conscious objective to kill the victim or was aware of the high probability that his or her conduct would result in the death of the victim.

Murder requires a knowing or intentional killing; premeditation is not an element.

Davenport v. State · filed 1984-07-06(1)

It is also clear that premeditation is no longer an element of the crime of murder. Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1 (Burns 1979 Repl.). In the present statute, the necessary culpability is that the act be done knowingly or intentionally.

Section 35-42-1-1 does not require the State to prove malice for a murder conviction.

McCann v. State · filed 1984-07-24

Thus the State does not bear the burden of proving malice in order to support a murder conviction as Defendant claims.

The State bears the burden of proving that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed the victim, even when the defendant bears the burden on an insanity defense.

Green v. State · filed 1984-10-30

Second, although Defendant did bear the burden of proof on the insanity issue, the State had the ultimate burden of proving that the Defendant knowingly or intentionally killed her daughter.

Section 35-42-1-1 requires proof that the defendant acted knowingly; proof that the defendant acted intentionally is unnecessary.

Feliciano v. State · filed 1985-04-30

Although we disagree, arguendo, that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a finding that Defendant shot Miller intentionally, it is immaterial, inasmuch as the statute under which he was charged required only that he acted knowingly.

A knowing murder conviction requires proof that the defendant knew his acts created a high probability of death.

Smith v. State · filed 1985-12-09(a)

It was only necessary for the prosecution to prove that appellant knew that his forcible acts of holding the girl's mouth open and pouring a large quantity of pepper into it, created a high probability of death by choking.

Murder does not require proof that the victim was forcibly removed.

Catrabone v. State · filed 1986-03-24(1)

The commission of a criminal confinement does not require that another human being be killed and a murder conviction does not require proof that the victim was forcibly removed.

A knowing murder does not require proof that the defendant desired the victim’s death; intentional violence committed with awareness of its probable consequences can establish the required mental state.

Kaufman v. State · filed 1986-08-13

It was not necessary for the State to prove that Kaufman actively wished for or desired the death of his daughter. A knowing murder was proven from the evidence that appellant intentionally squeezed, shook, and battered Tiffany and that he did so with an awareness of the probable consequences of his acts.

Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1 does not require proof of premeditation for murder.

Brown v. State · filed 1987-02-05

An earlier murder statute required proof of premeditation. Ind.Code § 85-18-4-1 (Burns 1975) (repealed 1976 Ind.Acts, P.L. 148, § 24, effective Oct. 1, 1977). The current version does not require such a showing. Ind.Code § 385-42-1-1; Davenport v. State (1984), Ind., 464 N.E.2d 1302.

Murder requires, at a minimum, a killing committed with awareness of a high probability that the conduct is killing.

Ingram v. State · filed 1989-12-14

Murder, on the other hand, requires as a minimum a killing committed by a perpetrator who engaged in the killing with an awareness of a high probability that he was doing so. Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1, in conjunction with Ind.Code § 35-41-2-2(b). Thus, an instruction on reckless homicide was warranted only if there was a serious evidentiary dispute as to whether the defendant committed the attacks recklessly but not knowingly.

Section 35-42-1-1(2) requires proof that a person died and that the defendant committed or attempted to commit arson.

Segovia v. State · filed 1996-05-31(2)

In order to obtain a conviction on the felony murder charge, the State had to prove that (1) Flynn died and (2) Segovia committed or attempted to commit arson.

Knowing murder and intentional murder are the same offense under subsection (1); neither is an included offense of the other.

Fleenor v. State · filed 1993-09-03(1)

The knowing murder of which appellant stood convicted and the intentional murder proved as an element of the number one aggravator do not bear the relationship of greater and lesser offense, i.e., one is not an included offense in the other, but are instead the same offense.

Murder is a result-oriented offense; the killing must be committed knowingly or intentionally.

Corley v. State · filed 1996-03-20

Murder is a result-oriented offense. The conduct ... which must have been knowingly or intentionally committed was the killing.

The murder statute’s requirement of another human being is separately satisfied for murder and attempted murder when the offenses involve different victims.

Butler v. State · filed 1993-11-03

Here, each offense, the violation and attempted violation of IC 35-42-1-1, was perpetrated against separate victims: Allison, the deceased, and Lark, the intended victim. There were clearly separate “other” human beings as required by the statute and the State more than adequately identified each.

Section 35-42-1-1 requires proof that the defendant killed knowingly or intentionally; the State need not prove both mental states.

Davis v. State · filed 1994-06-15(1)

To convict Davis of murder, it was necessary for the State to prove either knowledge or intent, not both.

Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1 requires proof of a killing for murder.

Grinstead v. State · filed 1997-07-22

Murder requires proof of a killing, but conspiracy does not; and conspiracy requires proof of an agreement to commit a felony, but murder does not.

Section 35-42-1-1(1) requires proof that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed another human being.

Hodge v. State · filed 1997-12-05(1)

To convict for murder, the State must prove that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed another human being.

Murder requires, at minimum, a killing committed with awareness of a high probability that the perpetrator is killing.

Heavrin v. State · filed 1996-12-31

Murder, on the other hand, requires as a minimum a killing committed by a perpetrator who engaged in the killing with an awareness of a high probability that he was doing so. Ind.Code §§ 35-42-1-1 and 35-41-2-2(b).

Murder requires a knowing or intentional killing.

McEwen v. State · filed 1998-04-30(1)

The only element distinguishing the two offenses is the defendant’s state of mind: reckless homicide occurs when the defendant “recklessly” kills another human being and murder occurs when the killing is done “knowingly” or “intentionally.”

Murder charged as a knowing killing requires proof that the defendant knowingly caused the victim’s death.

Anderson v. State · filed 1997-06-19(1)

The difference between Reckless Homicide and Murder is the mens rea element: Reckless Homicide requires a disregard of harm that might result from conduct, Ind.Code § 35-42-1-5; Murder as charged here requires the killing to be knowing, Ind.Code § 35-42-1-1.

Section 35-42-1-1(1) requires proof that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed another human being.

Hodge v. State · filed 1998-12-05(1)

To convict for murder, the State must prove that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed another human being.

Section 35-42-1-1 defines murder as knowingly or intentionally killing another human being; use of a weapon or a particularly violent manner is not an element.

Garrett v. State · filed 1999-07-15

Garrett was convicted of murder, which is defined as knowingly or intentionally killing another human being. ... It is not an element of the offense that Garrett used a weapon and killed Wise in a “particularly violent” manner.

Murder is established by proof that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed another human being.

Williams v. State · filed 1998-10-26

The crime of murder is established by proof that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed another human being. Ind.Code § 35-42-1-1 (1993).

Murder requires a knowing or intentional state of mind; reckless homicide requires a reckless state of mind.

Brown v. State · filed 1998-12-03

Reckless homicide is an inherently included lesser offense of murder. The element distinguishing it from murder is a “reckless” state of mind as compared to a “knowing or intentional” state of mind. Compare Ind.Code § 35-42-1-1 (1998) with Ind.Code § 35-42-1-5 (1998).

To convict of knowing murder, the jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly killed the victim.

Mitchell v. State · filed 2000-04-18

To convict the defendant of murder, the jury had to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly killed Emporia.

Murder requires a knowing or intentional state of mind.

Vermillion v. State · filed 1999-11-19

Murder requires a “knowing or intentional” state of mind, but reckless homicide requires only a “reckless” state of mind.

A person knowingly kills under the murder statute when he is aware of a high probability that he is engaged in killing.

Lehman v. State · filed 2000-06-28

A person knowingly kills when he is aware of a high probability that he is engaged in killing.

Section 35-42-1-1(1) requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed the victim.

Crain v. State · filed 2000-10-20(1)

To obtain a conviction for murder, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed the victim. Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(1) (1993); Powers v. State, 696 N.E.2d 865, 869-70 (Ind. 1998).

Section 35-42-1-1 requires that the defendant knowingly or intentionally kill another human being.

Fosha v. State · filed 2001-05-23

The essential elements of the offense of murder are (1) the defendant (2) with knowledge or intent (3) killed (4) another human being. Ind.Code § 35-42-1-1.

Section 35-42-1-1 requires proof that the defendant knowingly killed another human being.

Lander v. State · filed 2002-02-15

The essential elements of the offense of murder are: (1) the defendant (2) knowingly (3) killed (4) another human being. Ind. Code §35-42-1-1 (1998).

Murder under § 35-42-1-1 does not require the use of a deadly weapon.

McAbee v. State · filed 2002-06-28(1)

The use of a deadly weapon is not an element or a basis for a murder conviction and so such an enhancement does not violate the constitutional test set forth in Richardson.

When murder is charged on a knowing theory, the defendant must be aware of a high probability that the conduct will cause another person’s death.

Bostick v. State · filed 2002-08-19

As charged in this case, a conviction for murder requires that the defendant had a “knowing” level of culpability, ie., that the defendant was aware of the high probability that her conduct would result in the death of another when she engaged in the activity.

Section 35-42-1-1 requires proof that the defendant was aware of a high probability that his conduct would kill another person.

Blanchard v. State · filed 2004-01-13

To convict Blanchard of murder, the State is required to prove that Blanchard was aware of the high probability of killing Willon by placing a washcloth over his mouth. ... Based on the record and the testimony of witnesses, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to find Blanchard guilty of Willon's murder.

Murder requires the intentional killing of another human being; a defendant charged with aiding, inducing, or causing that killing must act knowingly or intentionally.

Jack v. State · filed 2007-07-18

The essential elements of the offense of aiding, inducing, or causing murder are: (1) the defendant (2) knowingly or intentionally (3) aided, induced, and/or caused (4) another person (5) to intentionally kill another human being.

Murder does not require proof that the killing was committed with a deadly weapon.

Ross v. State · filed 2007-12-11

Use of a deadly weapon is not an element of murder.

The murder statute does not require proof that the defendant failed to seek medical attention for the victim.

Rogers v. State · filed 2007-12-13

However, Rogers pleaded guilty to murder, and the murder statute does not require proof that the defendant did not seek medical attention for the victim.

Section 35-42-1-1(1) requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed the victim.

Ashworth v. State · filed 2009-02-20(1)

To convict Ashworth of murder, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly or intentionally killed Summers. See Ind.Code § 35-42-1-1(1).

Subsection (1) requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed the victim.

Camm v. State · filed 2009-06-26(1)

In order to obtain convictions for the murders, the State had to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed his wife and children. Ind.Code § 35-42-1-1(1). Sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict.

Murder requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed another person.

Townsend v. State · filed 2010-08-23

To convict Townsend of murder, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly or intentionally killed Randi. See I.C. § 35-42-1-1.

Section 35-42-1-1 requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed another person.

Green v. State · filed 2010-12-06

In order to convict Green of murder, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly or intentionally killed Ellis. See I.C. § 35-42-1-1.

Section 35-42-1-1(1) requires proof that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed the victim.

Delarosa v. State · filed 2010-12-21(1)

To convict Delarosa of the murder charges, the State was required to prove that Delarosa ―knowingly or intentionally‖ killed Rebecca and George.

Murder requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed another human being.

Crawford v. State · filed 2011-04-12

In order to convict Crawford for murder, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Crawford "knowingly or intentionally kill[ed] another human being." I.C. § 35-42-1-1.

Section 35-42-1-1(2) requires the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant killed the victim in the course of committing robbery.

Stewart v. State · filed 2011-04-18(2)

Stewart was charged with the murder and felony murder of each of the victims, and the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Stewart intentionally killed each victim and that he killed each of them in the course of committing robbery.

Section 35-42-1-1 classifies murder as a felony, not an A felony.

Rogers v. State · filed 2008-12-12

We would observe, however, that murder is not an A felony; pursuant to the relevant statute, murder is simply "a felony.” Ind.Code § 35-42-1-1 (2004).

Murder requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed another person.

Pattison v. State · filed 2011-12-09

In order to convict Pattison of murder as charged, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) Pattison (2) knowingly or intentionally (3) killed (4) Lisa Pattison.

Murder requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed the victim.

Lawrence v. State · filed 2012-01-11

To convict Lawrence of murder as charged, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) Lawrence (2) knowingly or intentionally (3) killed (4) Quinton Lewis.

Section 35-42-1-1 does not make the cause of death an element of felony murder.

Thomas v. State of Indiana · filed 2012-03-19(2)

The cause of death is not an element of the offense of felony murder.

Section 35-42-1-1(1) requires proof that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed another human being or caused another person to do so.

Sheckles v. State of Indiana · filed 2012-05-29(1)

Accordingly, to convict Sheckles of murder, the State was required to show that he knowingly or intentionally killed another human being or that he caused Robert to knowingly or intentionally kill another human being. Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(1).

For the felony murder counts as charged, the State had to prove that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed each victim while committing or attempting robbery.

Jones v. State of Indiana · filed 2012-09-14

As noted above, Jones was charged with four counts of felony murder pursuant to Indiana Code section 35-42-1-1. Regarding each count, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jones: (1) knowingly or intentionally; (2) killed each of the four victims in this case; (3) while committing or attempting to commit robbery.

Murder requires a knowing or intentional killing, while reckless homicide requires a reckless killing.

Carr v. State of Indiana · filed 2012-08-09(1)

Reckless homicide occurs when one recklessly kills another, and murder occurs when one knowingly or intentionally kills another.

Murder requires proof that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed another person.

Leonard v. State of Indiana · filed 2012-11-07

To prove Leonard committed murder, a felony, the State had to prove he knowingly or intentionally killed Bell. See Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1.

Section 35-42-1-1(1) requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed another person.

Campbell v. State of Indiana · filed 2013-02-28(1)

To convict Campbell of murder, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly or intentionally killed Donna. See Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(1) (1989).

Murder requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed the victim.

Tiller v. State of Indiana · filed 2013-06-18

In order to prove murder, the State was required to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Tiller knowingly or intentionally killed Gregg. See Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1.

Section 35-42-1-1 requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed another person.

Boyd v. State of Indiana · filed 2013-12-10

In order to establish that Boyd had committed two counts of murder, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Boyd knowingly or intentionally killed Newbill and Farmer.

A murder conviction under subsection (1) requires proof of a knowing or intentional killing; the State may prove that the defendant participated as an accomplice.

Tuggle v. State of Indiana · filed 2014-05-22(1)

To convict Tuggle of murder as charged, the State was required to prove that Tuggle was an accomplice to the knowing or intentional killing of Lindsay. ... From this evidence, the jury could reasonably infer that Tuggle went to Lindsay’s residence, fought with him, and assisted Torres in shooting him.

Murder requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly killed another person.

Washington v. State of Indiana · filed 2014-07-15(1)

We note that in order to prove the offense of murder, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Washington knowingly killed Eader.

Murder requires proof that the defendant caused another person’s death and acted knowingly or intentionally.

Watson v. State of Indiana · filed 2014-08-21(1)

The State must prove that Watson’s actions caused Adams’s death and that Watson acted either knowingly or intentionally.

Murder requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed another human being.

Francisco Villegas, Jr. v. State of Indiana · filed 2014-09-25

To convict Villegas of murder, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly or intentionally killed C.A., another human being.

Section 35-42-1-1 requires proof that the defendant knowingly or intentionally caused another person's death.

Tinsley v. State of Indiana · filed 2014-11-18

In order to convict Tinsley of murder, the State was required to prove that Tinsley knowingly or intentionally fired a gun against Stewart, causing his death.

Murder requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed another human being.

Weisheit v. State of Indiana · filed 2015-02-18(1)

To prove that Weisheit was guilty of murder, the State had to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) Weisheit; (2) knowingly or intentionally; (3) killed; (4) another human being.

Murder requires proof that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed another person.

Malcom Cobb, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2015-02-19(a)

Turning to Cobb’s murder conviction, to convict Cobb of murder, the State was required to prove that Cobb knowingly or intentionally killed Smith.

Murder requires proof that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed another human being.

Anderson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2015-02-19

A person commits murder when he “knowingly or intentionally kills another human being.” Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1 (2012). Thus, the State needed to prove Anderson knowingly or intentionally killed Roberts.

Murder requires proof of a knowing or intentional killing; the charge need not allege that the defendant acted in concert with a named person.

Howard v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2015-02-25

To prove Howard guilty of murder, the State was merely required to prove that he knowingly or intentionally killed Howard.

Section 35-42-1-1(2) requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant killed a person while committing a robbery.

Seward v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2015-03-23(2)

To convict Seward of felony murder, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he killed Barnes while committing a robbery.

Section 35-42-1-1(1) requires the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly killed another person.

Webb v. State of Indiana · filed 2014-05-21(1)

To convict Webb of murder, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly killed Cherlyn.

Section 35-42-1-1 permits a finding of knowing murder when the evidence shows that the defendant fired at the victim as he walked away.

Spivey v. State of Indiana · filed 2014-09-25

This evidence is more than sufficient to support an inference that Spivey acted knowingly in killing Ball.

Murder requires proof that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed another person.

Brown v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2015-06-11(1)

To prove Brown committed murder, the State had to present evidence he knowingly or intentionally killed Fesler.

Murder requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knowingly or intentionally killed another person.

T.J. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2015-11-09

To support T.J.’s true finding for murder as a principal or an accomplice, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that T.J. knowingly or intentionally killed Ty.A.

Murder requires proof that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed the victim.

Gonzales v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2016-07-13(1)

To convict Gonzales of murder, the State was required to prove that she knowingly or intentionally killed Miller.

Murder requires proof that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed another human being; repeated blows to the head can support an inference of a knowing killing.

Scott-Manna v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2015-07-27(1)

In order to convict Scott-Manna of murder, the State was required to prove that he knowingly or intentionally killed another human being. ... Looking at the evidence most favorable to the jury’s verdict, as we are required to do, we conclude that the jury could reasonably infer that, at the least, Scott-Manna knowingly killed Griffin. The evidence was sufficient to support Scott-Manna’s conviction for murder.

To knowingly commit murder under § 35-42-1-1, a defendant must be aware of a high probability that death will result from the defendant’s actions.

Massey v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2015-10-14

With respect to the crime of murder, to “knowingly” kill requires, at a minimum, an awareness on the part of the defendant of a high probability that death will result from his actions.

Murder under subsection (1) requires that the defendant knowingly or intentionally kill another person.

Takesha Lashawn Sanders v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2016-02-15(1)

The only element distinguishing murder and reckless homicide is the defendant’s state of mind: reckless homicide occurs when the defendant “recklessly” kills another human being, and murder occurs when the killing is done “knowingly” or “intentionally.”

Section 35-42-1-1(1) requires proof that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed another person.

Raggs v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2016-08-31(1)

In order to convict Raggs of murder as charged, the State had to prove that he knowingly or intentionally killed Tony. See Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(1).

Subsection (1) requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed the victim.

L.C. Strong v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2016-12-15(1)

To convict Strong of murder, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly or intentionally killed Linda Martin. Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(1).

Murder requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed another human being.

Sir Christopher Lee Jones v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2017-07-31

To convict Jones of murder, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly or intentionally killed another human being. I.C. § 35-42-1-1.

In this opinion, the court phrased the required killing as knowing and intentional; the statutory text and other opinions use “or.”

Tinajero-Garcia v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2017-08-09(1)

To convict a defendant of murder, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly and intentionally killed another human being. Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(1).

Murder requires proof that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed the victim.

Gonzalez v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2017-08-16(1)

To convict Gonzalez of murder, the State was required to prove that he knowingly or intentionally killed Smith.

Section 35-42-1-1(1) defines murder to include both knowing and intentional killing; an instruction mentioning only knowing killing gives an incomplete definition.

Kadrowvach v. State of Indiana · filed 2016-09-30(1)

He then directs our attention to the first sentence of Instruction 8, which omits from its definition of murder the statutory phrase “or intentionally.” Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(1). He correctly asserts that this amounts to an incomplete definition of murder.

Murder under Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1 requires an intentional or knowing killing; recklessness alone is insufficient.

Cain v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2017-06-22

Either an intentional or a knowing killing is required for a murder conviction.

Section 35-42-1-1(1) requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed another person.

Hodge v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2017-11-30(1)

To convict Hodge of murder, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly or intentionally killed Joshua. See Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(1) (2014).

Section 35-42-1-1(1) requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed the victim.

Landry v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2018-06-11(1)

In order to convict Landry of murder, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Landry did knowingly or intentionally kill Hyler. Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(1).

Murder requires an intentional or knowing killing; shooting at a person while aware of a high probability of death satisfies the knowing mental state.

Reichler v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2017-10-31

Murder requires proof of a mental state of intentionally or knowingly killing another person. ... This evidence establishes that Reichler shot twice at Alexius knowing there was a high probability that Alexius would be killed, rather than that he fired without regard for the risk of Alexius’ death.

Subsection (1) requires proof that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed the victim.

Carylon Young v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2018-10-17(1)

To support Young’s conviction of murder, the State was required to show that Young (1) knowingly or intentionally (2) killed (3) Means. I.C. § 35-42-1-1(1).

Section 35-42-1-1(1) requires proof that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed another person.

Smith v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2018-12-03(1)

To support Smith’s conviction of murder, the State was required to show that Smith (1) knowingly or intentionally (2) killed (3) Krawczenia.

Section 35-42-1-1(1) requires proof that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed another person.

Garcia v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-01-30(1)

To support Garcia’s conviction of murder, the State was required to show that Garcia (1) knowingly or intentionally (2) killed (3) Moreno. I.C. § 35-42-1-1(1).

Murder requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed the victim.

Zion Smith v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-02-13

To convict Smith of murder, as charged, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly or intentionally killed Staten.

Murder requires proof that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed the victim.

Farris v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-03-12

To obtain a conviction for murder as charged, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) Farris (2) knowingly or intentionally (3) killed Howard.

Murder requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed another human being.

Abd v. State of Indiana · filed 2019-04-04

To convict Abd of murder, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Abd (1) knowingly or intentionally (2) killed another human being.

Section 35-42-1-1(1) requires proof that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed another person.

Davis v. Sate of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-05-16(1)

To convict Davis of murder, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly or intentionally killed Rees. I.C. § 35-42-1-1(1).

Felony murder requires a killing during an attempted robbery but does not require an agreement between coconspirators.

Dorsey v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-09-26(2)

On the other hand, the felony murder did not require an agreement between coconspirators but did require a killing during the attempted robbery.

Section 35-42-1-1 does not make the absence of self-defense an element of murder.

Hicks v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-10-29

Self-defense is not an element of the crime of murder or its lesser-included offenses.

A person commits murder under § 35-42-1-1 by knowingly or intentionally killing another human being.

Hernandez-Ramirez v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2020-02-17

Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1 provides that a person who knowingly or intentionally kills another human being commits murder. ... Based upon the record, we conclude the State presented evidence of probative value from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found Hernandez-Ramirez guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of murder.

Murder requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed another person.

Keith B. Ivory, Jr. v. State of Indiana · filed 2020-02-20

To convict Ivory of murder as charged, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) Ivory (2) knowingly or intentionally (3) killed Smallwood. Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1.

Section 35-42-1-1 defines murder as the knowing or intentional killing of another human being; premeditation is not an element.

Baldwin v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2020-05-05

Murder is defined as the knowing or intentional killing of another human being. See I.C. § 35-42-1-1. As such, the element of pre-meditation is not specifically included as an element of the crime.

Murder requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed another human being.

McNair v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2020-05-21(1)

Therefore, to obtain a conviction of murder in this case, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) McNair (2) knowingly or intentionally (3) killed Burnett.

Section 35-42-1-1 requires proof that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed the victim.

Sanders v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2020-07-09

To prove Sanders committed murder, the State had to present evidence he knowingly or intentionally killed Naugle.

Murder requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed another person.

Mirabal v. State of Indiana · filed 2024-06-25(1)

To convict Mirabal of murder, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mirabal knowingly or intentionally killed Baca.

Section 35-42-1-1(1) does not require proof of a specific intent to rob for a murder conviction.

Lei Gamble v. State of Indiana · filed 2025-03-27(1)

Although relevant to the felony murder charge in Count II, the showing of a specific intent to rob Cruz was not required to convict Gamble of Cruz’s murder in Count I.

Section 35-42-1-1 defines murder as knowingly or intentionally killing another human being.

Littlefield v. State of Indiana · filed 2023-07-13

In accordance with Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1, the offense of murder is committed when a defendant “knowingly or intentionally kills another human being.”

Murder does not require a specific intent to kill.

James v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2020-02-11

Unlike the present case, however, these factors had a bearing on a requisite element of Kiefer’s offense—i.e., whether Kiefer acted with the specific intent to kill the victim. That element is not required for the offense of murder; thus, Kiefer is inapposite to this case.

Felony murder under subsection (2) requires a killing during the commission or attempted commission of a listed felony; the killing need not be intentional.

Grimes v. State of Indiana · filed 2026-04-13(2)

Moreover, felony murder never requires that the killing be done with purpose, i.e., knowingly or intentionally; instead, the felony murder statute requires only the killing of another human being while committing (or attempting to commit) one of the listed felonies.

Section 35-42-1-1 does not require proof of premeditation for murder.

Landske v. State of Indiana · filed 2020-05-14

The State was not required to prove premeditation to convict Landske of murder.

Murder requires proof that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed another person.

Brown v. State of Indiana · filed 2023-10-26(1)

To prove Brown committed murder, the State had to prove he “knowingly or intentionally” killed Lieutenant Allan. ... Based thereon, we conclude the State presented sufficient evidence Brown knowingly and intentionally killed Lieutenant Allan.

Section 35-42-1-1(1) permits a murder conviction for a knowing killing without proof that the defendant intended to kill.

Esequiel Trejo, Jr. v. State of Indiana · filed 2025-09-29(1)

This argument fails because the State did not have to prove Trejo intentionally killed Hernandez-Acosta, but rather that he did so knowingly.

Intent or knowledge for murder may be inferred from an adult’s violent attack on a young child and the adult’s statements during the attack.

Burkhalter v. State · filed 1979-12-11

In the instant case, the evidence revealing the dunking and kicking of a four year old boy by an adult man together with defendant’s statements to the boy would enable a jury to draw an inference of intent or the requisite knowledge.

Intentional use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death or great bodily injury can support a murder verdict.

Hardin v. State · filed 1980-06-03(1)

Malice may be inferred from the intentional use of a deadly weapon in a manner reasonably calculated to cause death or great bodily injury. ... The evidence was sufficient for the jury to have returned a verdict of guilty to the charge of murder.

The intent element of murder can be established by substantial evidence of an intentional killing.

Price v. State · filed 1980-11-26

In the case at bar, there was substantial evidence of probative value to support the jury's conclusion that appellant intentionally killed the decedent.

Intent to kill may be inferred from a stealthy attack and repeated stabbing.

Smith v. State · filed 1981-04-22

Based upon the same considerations as above, we conclude that the jury was warranted in concluding beyond a reasonable doubt from the stealth employed, and the repeated acts of stabbing, that appellant intended on this occasion to kill Foster.

A murder conviction under subsection (1) is supported when the evidence permits a jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knowingly caused the victim’s death by shooting.

Reburn v. State · filed 1981-06-09(1)

If believed, it was sufficient to warrant the jury in concluding to a moral certainty beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant knowingly caused her husband to die by shooting him.

The intent required for murder may be inferred from using a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

Armstrong v. State · filed 1982-01-07

The element of intent required in a killing to constitute murder may be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

Intent to kill may be inferred from evidence that the defendant used a shotgun to enter an apartment and kill the victim after she rejected him.

Oates v. State · filed 1982-01-13

From such evidence the jury could have found that something “cracked” as Defendant claims, or that he intentionally used a shotgun to break into an apartment and to kill the victim in response to her rejection.

Intent to kill for murder may be inferred from the intentional use of a deadly weapon in a manner reasonably calculated to cause death or great bodily harm.

Vasseur v. State · filed 1982-02-11

There was sufficient evidence to support each element of murder. Intent to kill can be inferred from the intentional use of a deadly weapon in a manner reasonably calculated to produce death or great bodily harm so that a purpose to kill may be inferred from the act of killing.

Intent to commit murder may be inferred from the intentional use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death.

Williams v. State · filed 1982-04-13

The intent to commit murder may be inferred from the intentional use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death.

Subsection (1) permits a murder conviction when the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly caused the victim’s death.

Powell v. State · filed 1982-07-26(1)

In his confession, he admitted placing his hand and the blanket over her mouth, and persisted in this conduct against her physical resistance until she no longer moved. From this evidence the jury was warranted in concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct was accompanied by the requisite knowledge.

A jury may find the knowing or intentional mental state for murder despite a claim of intoxication when evidence shows the defendant remained in control of his conduct.

Roell v. State · filed 1982-08-10

There was ample evidence presented to the jury from which they could properly find beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant had committed the crime of murder and that he did so knowingly and intentionally.

The intent required for murder may be inferred from intentional use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death.

Ballard v. State · filed 1982-08-10

This Court has held the necessary intent to commit murder may be inferred from intentional use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death. ... The victim sustained six gunshot wounds. Testimony was heard that the assailant continued to shoot the victim after she fell. Under our standard of review, we hold the evidence was sufficient on the issues of identification and intent to support the conviction.

Intent to murder may be inferred from using a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death.

Russell v. State · filed 1982-08-12

We have often recognized that malice and intent may be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death. ... While the jury might have found otherwise, the evidence was sufficient to sustain its verdict that defendant was guilty of murder.

Intent to murder may be established by using a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

Clay v. State · filed 1982-10-06

The use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death or great bodily harm may be sufficient to establish a defendant’s intent to commit murder.

Intent to commit murder may be inferred from the intentional use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death.

Andrews v. State · filed 1982-11-03

It is well-settled that the necessary intent to commit murder may be inferred from the intentional use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death.

Intent to kill for murder may be inferred from using a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

Davidson v. State · filed 1982-12-27

It is also well settled that the element of intent required in the killing to constitute murder may be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

Evidence that the defendant unlawfully and knowingly killed the victim can support a murder conviction despite a claim of sudden heat.

Burris v. State · filed 1983-02-17

The jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt from the State’s evidence that Defendant unlawfully and knowingly killed the decedent as charged in the information.

Circumstantial evidence can support a murder conviction if a reasonable person could find every element beyond a reasonable doubt.

Napier v. State · filed 1983-03-16

Circumstantial evidence alone may support a murder conviction so long as a reasonable man could find each element of the crime therefrom beyond a reasonable doubt.

Under § 35-42-1-1(1), intent to kill may be inferred from repeatedly striking a victim with a metal bar in a manner likely to cause death.

Pendrick v. State · filed 1983-04-26(1)

The intentional aspect of his conduct may be inferred from his having repeatedly struck the victim, with a metal bar and in consort with others, in a manner likely to cause death.

A knowing murder conviction may rest on evidence that the defendant was aware of a high probability that his act would kill another human being.

Bryan v. State · filed 1983-06-28

From this evidence the jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt appellant committed the act of killing another human being while aware of a high probability that he was doing so.

Intent to kill may be inferred from using a deadly weapon in a manner reasonably calculated to cause death.

Brewer v. State · filed 1983-10-31(1)

Appellant's intent to kill the victim may be inferred from his using a deadly weapon, ie., a pistol, in a manner reasonably calculated to cause death.

Intent to murder may be established by using a weapon in a manner likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

Burgess v. State · filed 1984-04-17(1)

The use of a weapon in a manner likely to cause death or great bodily harm may be sufficient to establish a defendant’s intent to commit murder.

A murder conviction may rest on circumstantial evidence from which the jury can infer that the defendant knowingly or intentionally killed the victim.

Corder v. State · filed 1984-08-20

From the evidence produced at trial the jury could logically have inferred that defendant knowingly and intentionally shot his father.

Intent to kill may be inferred from intentionally using a deadly weapon in a manner reasonably calculated to cause death or great bodily harm.

McMurry v. State · filed 1984-09-12

It is well settled that intent to kill can be inferred from the intentional use of a deadly weapon in a manner reasonably calculated to produce death or great bodily harm.

Section 35-42-1-1 defines murder as knowingly or intentionally killing another human being; shooting an unarmed person as he walks away can support a finding of a knowing killing.

Wilson v. State · filed 1984-10-18

A person who knowingly or intentionally kills another human being commits murder. Ind.Code § 35-42-1-1 (Burns 1979 Repl.). ... The evidence here showed that appellant pulled a gun from his pocket and shot an unarmed man in front of several witnesses as the victim walked away from him following an argu*1375ment. There was substantial probative evidence from which the jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant knowingly killed Donald Robinson.

A murder conviction is supported by evidence that the defendant knowingly and intentionally killed the victim absent provocation or sudden heat.

Green v. State · filed 1984-11-09

The evidence most favorable to the state was sufficient to support the verdict that the defendant knowingly and intentionally killed the victim absent provocation or sudden heat.

Intent to kill for murder may be inferred from using a deadly weapon in a manner reasonably calculated to cause death or great bodily harm.

Alfaro v. State · filed 1985-05-28

The intent to kill may be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon in a manuer reasonably calculated to produce death or great bodily harm.

Evidence that the defendant returned to the station office and shot the victim was sufficient to support a murder conviction.

Rounds v. State · filed 1985-07-18(2)

This is a direct appeal from a conviction of murder, I.C. § 35-42-1-1(2). ... Thereafter, appellant walked back into the station office and shot the victim. The victim was pleading for his life right before he was shot. ... The evidence is clearly sufficient to support appellant's conviction for murder.

Section 35-42-1-1(1) requires a knowing or intentional killing, which the jury may infer from circumstantial evidence.

Richardson v. State · filed 1985-08-28(1)

Rather, he claims that the shooting was an accident, and that the State failed to show that he acted "knowingly or intentionally" as required for a conviction of murder under Ind.Code § 35-42-1-1. ... It cannot be said, as a matter of law, that the State presented no substantial evidence from which the jury could have reasonably inferred that Defendant acted knowingly or intentional ly. Rather, the State presented sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.

Circumstantial evidence of a struggle before the shooting, hurried departure afterward, and possession of the victim's gun can support a murder conviction.

Gerald v. State · filed 1986-03-31

The evidence most favorable to the judgment sufficed to convict Gerald of the murder. The proof of his struggle with the victim immediately before the four gun shots, his hurried activity thereafter, and his possession of her .25 gun, warranted a reasonable person in concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant killed the victim.

Murder requires a knowing or intentional killing, and intent to kill may be inferred from intentional use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death.

Brumley v. State · filed 1986-05-13

Under ind. Code § 85-42-1-1 a person commits murder if he knowingly or intentionally kills the victim. ... The necessary intent to commit murder may be inferred from the intentional use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death.

Intent to commit murder may be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon.

Sears v. State · filed 1986-07-17(1)

Her intent can be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon against the unarmed defendant.

Circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to support a murder conviction.

Allen v. State · filed 1986-08-06

Circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to support a murder conviction.

Intent to commit murder may be inferred from using a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

Jenkins v. State · filed 1986-09-17

To the contrary, the intent to commit murder may be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause a death or great bodily harm.