Brandon Allen Eaton, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] After beating Joshua Burton in the head multiple times with a piece of wood leaving him unable to walk, talk, or care for himself, Brandon Allen Eaton was convicted of attempted murder. He appeals his conviction, asserting there was insufficient evidence of a specific intent to kill. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On January 26, 2024, Joshua and his wife, Chrissy Burton (collectively, the Burtons), were getting ready to leave their apartment for a birthday party. Before they left, Chrissy went to get something from her car and while doing so, she encountered Eaton attempting to get in the other side of her car. She yelled at him, and Eaton lunged at her before running to a nearby church parking lot. Chrissy called Joshua over who attempted to talk to Eaton from a distance, but Eaton did not respond. The Burtons then left for their party.

[3] They returned in the early hours of the next morning and stayed up to hang out in their living room. Around 4:30 a.m., Eaton knocked on their apartment door. With Chrissy standing behind him, Joshua answered the door and Chrissy recognized Eaton as the same man that had attempted to break into her car the night before. Eaton asked them for methamphetamine, and Joshua told him he would call the police if Eaton did not leave the property. Eaton walked away, and they heard a door slam below, so the Burtons assumed Eaton had left the building.

[4] Later that morning, Joshua took their dogs outside before they went to bed. While he was out, Eaton returned to the hallway of the Burtons’ apartment carrying the legs of a sawhorse. He closed the stairwell door and pulled apart the legs of the sawhorse so he had a separate piece of wood from it. Using that piece of wood, Eaton knocked on their apartment door but there was no answer. He moved over to the stairwell door, looked through its small window, and a few seconds later, he entered the stairwell still carrying the piece of wood.

[5] Chrissy, who was still inside the apartment, heard commotion in the hallway and went out to see what was going on. She noticed the stairwell door was closed, which was unusual, and she opened it to find Joshua draped over the banister. Eaton was standing over Joshua holding the piece of wood, and Chrissy saw Eaton hit Joshua in the head with the wood at least two times. Chrissy went to Joshua, who was unconscious but breathing, and moved him to the landing. She could not locate the source of the bleeding because “there were so many points of impact on [his] head.” Transcript at 77. Eaton then pulled her down the stairs, but she was eventually able to push him out the door and lock him out. She returned to Joshua, then retrieved her cellphone and called 911. While she was on the phone, Joshua woke up, vomited, screamed, removed his shirt, crawled up the stairs, and knocked on their neighbor's door for help. The neighbor helped Chrissy get Joshua into their apartment and once there, he lost consciousness again.

[6] Joshua was taken to Eskenazi Hospital where he underwent two emergency brain surgeries to address the bleeding and swelling in his brain. The bleeding Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 25A-CR-1481 | December 12, 2025 Page 3 of 9 on his brain had caused a “significant” one centimeter midline shift to the right. Tr. at 106. Joshua's skull had been fractured in multiple places, including his left and right temporal regions, the base, and around his eyes and nose. He spent approximately eight months in hospitals and rehabilitation centers, and his injuries left him unable to walk, talk, feed himself, or care for himself. He now eats through a feeding tube, lives with his mother, and requires constant care.

[7] The detective assigned to the case began searching for Eaton after identifying him on a video captured by a neighbor's camera and meeting with Eaton's sister. He located Eaton at Methodist Hospital a few days later ¹ and arrested him. Eaton was charged with Count I: Attempted Murder, a Level 1felony;² and Counts II and III: Aggravated Battery, as Level 3 felonies.³ He waived his right to a jury trial and proceeded in his defense pro se.

[8] At the bench trial, the State introduced time-stamped video evidence and testimony from Chrissy, multiple law enforcement officers, and Joshua's neurosurgeon. All of these sources recounted the facts as laid out above. Eaton presented no evidence in his defense besides some of his medical records from Methodist Hospital, and his sole closing argument was, “Where's the victim at?” Tr. at 189. The court found Eaton guilty on all counts, noting that he had laid in wait, manufactured a weapon, and he had left and come back specifically to the Burtons’ apartment. See id. at 191. The court later vacated the two aggravated battery counts and sentenced Eaton on Count I to forty years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction. Appellant's Appendix Vol. 2 at 234. Eaton appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[9] Eaton appeals his conviction for attempted murder, asserting there was insufficient evidence of his specific intent to kill.

[10] 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). In our review, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses, “and we consider conflicting evidence most favorably to the trial court's ruling.” Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 906 (Ind. 2005).

[11] Eaton 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). “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). To convict Eaton of attempted murder, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, with the conscious objective to kill Joshua, Eaton engaged in conduct that constituted a substantial step toward such killing.

[12] “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. Our Supreme Court has “consistently held that whether an object is or is not a deadly weapon depends upon the manner in which it is used.” Corder v. State, 467 N.E.2d 409, 412 (Ind. 1984) (concluding a baseball bat used to strike the victim across the head “was obviously [ ] used in a manner calculated to cause great bodily injury” and supported the inference of defendant's specific intent to kill); see Lamb v. State, 462 N.E.2d 1025, 1028 (Ind. 1984); Cummings v. State, 384 N.E.2d 605, 606 (Ind. 1979); Liston v. State, 250 N.E.2d 739, 741-42 (Ind. 1969). Furthermore, “where blows of magnitude are repeated, a [trier of fact] could conclude that the defendant had an intent to kill.” Burns v. State, 59 N.E.3d 323, 328 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (citing Nunn v. State, 601 N.E.2d 334, 339 (Ind. 1992)), trans. denied.

[13] The evidence at trial showed that Eaton laid in wait for Joshua, fashioned a weapon, and struck him in the head multiples times to the point of unconsciousness with a piece of wood. The attack resulted in fractures in the temporal regions of Joshua's skull, nasal and orbital bone fractures, a significant midline shift in Joshua's brain, and removal of two portions of his skull to address the bleeding and swelling. Joshua's neurosurgeon testified that Joshua would have died without the emergency surgeries. See Tr. at 108. Thus, the evidence presented showed Eaton used the wood in a manner likely to cause death or great bodily injury and from that, the trial court could reasonably infer Eaton had a specific intent to kill Joshua. See Wesby v. State, 550 N.E.2d 321, 323 (Ind. 1991) (finding sufficient evidence of intent to kill where victim was approached and deliberately stabbed twice in the chest and her “wounds were severe enough to bring [her] close to death”).

[14] Eaton contends there was insufficient evidence because he “never made any statements about killing anyone, did not use a gun but rather an ordinary piece of wood, and [had] no motive [to kill].” Appellant's Brief at 8; see Kiefer v. State, 761 N.E.2d 802, 806 (Ind. 2002) (noting “the absence of motive” may be a “significant exculpatory factor because an inference is required to establish” the specific intent to kill). His arguments are unavailing.

[15] First, while a statement as to one's intent to kill can serve as evidentiary support that a defendant had the requisite intent, such a statement is not required. See Perez, 872 N.E.2d at 214 (“Intent to kill may be inferred from the nature of the attack and circumstances surrounding the crime.”). Second, as discussed above, whether a weapon is deadly turns on its use, not necessarily its inherent nature. See Corder, 467 N.E.2d at 412. Eaton relentlessly beat Joshua in the head with a piece of wood—a weapon he took the time to fashion to lodge the attack. The evidence supports that the manner in which he used the wood rendered it a deadly weapon. Lastly, the trial court could infer from the record that Eaton had motive. The same night Eaton attacked Joshua, Joshua had confronted Eaton after he attempted to break into Chrissy's car and then later denied Eaton's request for drugs and threatened to call the police if he did not leave the premises. Such facts could indicate Eaton's motive to return to the apartment and attack Joshua, and we will not reweigh the evidence as presented at trial.

Conclusion

[16] For the foregoing reasons, we conclude there was sufficient evidence of Eaton's specific intent to kill Joshua. Therefore, we affirm.

[17] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Eaton had sustained a gunshot wound unrelated to the events of this case and was taken to Methodist Hospital for treatment. See Tr. at 131-33; Ex. Vol. 1 at 39, 40.

2.   Ind. Code §§ 35-42-1-1(1), 35-41-5-1.

3.   I.C. §§ 35-42-2-1.5(2), 35-42-2-1.5.

DeBoer, Judge.

Bradford, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.