ALEXANDER v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] In 2020, Chosen Alexander and Lonell Hudson Jr. engaged in a shootout at a Phillips 66 gas station in South Bend, Indiana. As a result, Alexander was convicted of Level 1 felony attempted murder, Level 6 felony criminal recklessness, and Level 5 felony carrying a handgun without a license. Alexander appeals his attempted murder conviction, asserting there was insufficient evidence of his specific intent to kill Hudson. Finding otherwise, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On November 2, 2020, Alexander and his friend went to a Phillips 66 gas station in South Bend to get cigars and snacks. A few minutes later, Hudson arrived at the store driven by his girlfriend. Before Alexander and his friend checked out, Hudson entered the store. After Hudson took a few steps inside, Alexander pulled his handgun out of his pocket and fired multiple shots at Hudson. State's Exhibit 134A at 01:44. Hudson also had a handgun in his pocket and pulled it out as Alexander started to shoot but did not fire while he was inside. Id. at 01:44. Hudson turned around to flee and fell outside, dropping his gun. Id. at 01:46. He then stood up, grabbed his gun, and fired six shots at the store while moving toward his girlfriend's car. Id. at 12:45-13:00; see State's Exs. 12-17. Some of Hudson's shots went through the store's side window, striking items inside, while others hit the side of the building. State's Ex. 134A at 04:35; State's Exs. 85-96.

[3] Alexander and his friend ducked behind the store aisle for cover. After Hudson stopped shooting, Alexander stood up, looked out the window, took a shooting stance, and fired eight shots at Hudson as Hudson got into his girlfriend's car. State's Ex. 134A at 04:38, 12:57. Alexander's shots went out through the store window, with five hitting the car right next to Hudson. Transcript Vol. 2 at 192; State's Exs. 22-30, 38, 76. At some point during the shootout, Hudson was shot in the leg, arm, and side of his chest. Hudson's girlfriend drove away from the gas station and took Hudson to the hospital where he was treated for his injuries. Once Hudson was gone, Alexander and his friend fled the scene.

[4] The State charged Alexander with Level 1 felony attempted murder, Level 5 felony battery by means of a deadly weapon, Level 5 felony carrying a handgun without a license with a prior conviction, Level 6 felony criminal recklessness, and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license. A three-day jury trial was held during which the State submitted security camera footage from the gas station depicting the shootout from multiple angles. The defense's sole evidence was Alexander's testimony, in which he claimed he shot at Hudson in self-defense.

[5] The jury found Alexander guilty of attempted murder, criminal recklessness, and carrying a handgun without a license with a prior conviction.¹ He was acquitted of battery by means of a deadly weapon. For the attempted murder conviction, Alexander was sentenced to an aggregate of thirty-five years executed in the Department of Correction.

[6] Alexander only appeals his attempted murder conviction, asserting there was insufficient evidence to support it.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Our standard of review for a claim of insufficient evidence is well settled. “We will affirm ․ if there is substantial evidence of probative value that would lead a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Owens v. State, 246 N.E.3d 1256, 1264 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (quoting Powell v. State, 151 N.E.3d 256, 263 (Ind. 2020)). The evidence does not have to “overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence” in order to be sufficient. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 147 (Ind. 2007) (quoting Moore v. State, 652 N.E.2d 53, 55 (Ind. 1995), reh'g denied). Owing respect to “the jury's exclusive province to weigh conflicting evidence,” we do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses in our review. McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005) (quoting Alkhalidi v. State, 753 N.E.2d 625, 627 (Ind. 2001)). It is the fact finder that determines whether evidence is sufficient to prove each element of an offense, and any conflicting evidence will be considered in favor of the jury's verdict. Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 906 (Ind. 2005).

[8] Alexander was convicted of attempted murder. A person commits murder when they “knowingly or intentionally kill[ ] another human being.” Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(1). Attempt to commit a crime occurs when “the person engages in conduct that constitutes a substantial step toward commission of the crime.” I.C. § 35-41-5-1(a). In a case of attempted murder, there must be proof of the defendant's specific intent to kill—a mens rea of “knowingly” is not enough. Spradlin v. State, 569 N.E.2d 948, 950 (Ind. 1991). Thus, to convict Alexander of attempted murder, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, with the specific intent to kill Hudson, Alexander engaged in conduct that constituted a substantial step toward such killing. “A person engages in conduct ‘intentionally’ if, when he engages in the conduct, it is his conscious objective to do so.” I.C. § 35-41-2-2(a). Alexander argues that the evidence was insufficient to show he had the requisite specific intent to kill Hudson.

[9] “Intent to kill may be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death or great bodily injury.” Perez v. State, 872 N.E.2d 208, 213 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (quoting Corbin v. State, 840 N.E.2d 424, 429 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)), trans. denied; see Davis v. State, 558 N.E.2d 811, 812 (Ind. 1990). Additionally, our Supreme Court has held that a jury may infer intent to kill from a defendant's discharge of a weapon in the direction of the victim. Leon v. State, 525 N.E.2d 331, 332 (Ind. 1988); see Corbin, 840 N.E.2d at 429. The jury could have inferred the same here. Alexander fired at Hudson at least ten times. See Tr. Vol. 2 at 191-92. He fired multiple, close-range shots at Hudson when Hudson came in and then eight more shots through the window of the store as Hudson was fleeing and no longer shooting. Five of those bullets hit the car right next to Hudson. Further, the video clearly shows Alexander firing directly at Hudson when he entered the store. State's Ex. 134A at 01:44. Then, after Hudson exited the store and stopped shooting, Alexander stood up, located Hudson outside the window, took aim, and fired eight shots in Hudson's direction. Id. at 04:38. Thus, there is substantial evidence that Alexander used his gun in a manner likely to cause death or great bodily injury and fired it in Hudson's direction, and the jury could reasonably infer from such evidence that Alexander intended to kill Hudson.

[10] Alexander asserted at trial and contends here that his shots, specifically those fired through the window, were “blind fire.” Tr. Vol. 3 at 10-11. He claims he had “no way of knowing” that Hudson had stopped firing into the gas station and that he was just shooting to “keep [Hudson] away from [him].” Id. at 12. However, Alexander also testified that he could see Hudson “in the middle of those two cars with his gun still in his hand and his fingers around the trigger.” Id. at 15-16. Alexander took note of where Hudson was, could even see Hudson's fingers, and then fired. Thus, not only does the clear security footage undermine Alexander's claim that he fired blindly, but his testimony does, too. See Perez, 872 N.E.2d at 213-14 (finding that defendant's argument that he had “difficulty seeing” his victims and aiming his gun was undermined by his testimony that he saw the gang signs the victims had displayed prior to defendant firing.).

[11] Based on the evidence and reasonable inferences flowing therefrom, we conclude that it was not unreasonable for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Alexander intended to kill Hudson and therefore, committed attempted murder.

Conclusion

[12] Finding there was sufficient evidence to support Alexander's conviction for attempted murder, we affirm.

[13] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Alexander was found guilty of carrying a handgun without a license, a Class A misdemeanor. By virtue of his admission to having a prior unrelated conviction, the offense was elevated to a Level 5 felony. See Appealed Order at 1.

DeBoer, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.