Timothy Minix, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Timothy Minix appeals his conviction of murder, contending the trial court committed instructional error. Concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] At the end of October 2024, Timothy Minix moved out of his girlfriend's house and into his father Landin's house. The next month, Minix messaged his sister, telling her that he had some health concerns and was going through a difficult time. He also told her that “he had a new girlfriend that would fill for him and hide the body.” Tr. Vol. 2, p. 104.

[3] At the beginning of December, Minix had a phone conversation with his ex-girlfriend in which he told her “that he was in the woods that he was digging a hole.” Id. at 144. Minix also stated, “that he was contemplating on killing his father[ ] but didn't know if he could live with it.” Id. at 145. His ex-girlfriend told him to get help, but Minix responded that “there's going to be no help for him.” Id. at 150.

[4] Just a few days later, a sheriff's deputy was dispatched to Landin's address for a welfare check. When the deputy arrived and exited his vehicle, he smelled a strong odor of natural gas. Once the fire department had turned off the gas, the deputy entered the residence and found Landin dead in a chair. As the scene was examined and evidence was collected, the crime scene investigator noted that the front panel of the microwave was missing and appeared to have been broken because there were pieces of glass under the microwave.

[5] An autopsy revealed that Landin had suffered a gunshot wound to the forehead from “contact range,” meaning that the barrel of the weapon was either touching or very close to the skin when the weapon was fired. Tr. Vol. 3, p. 51. Landin also sustained a gunshot wound to his left upper arm, fractured cartilage in his neck, numerous blunt force injuries, and a deep laceration to his lip. His cause of death was determined to be multiple gunshot wounds, and his manner of death was listed as homicide.

[6] The day after Landin's body was discovered, Minix gave a statement to police. He explained to police that he did not have a good relationship with his father, but he had been living with him. The day Landin was killed, Minix had gone to the residence to collect some of his property and was confronted by Landin. Minix told police that Landin first produced a knife and then a gun. He stated that he took the gun away from Landin and fired it no more than four times. Minix admitted that he then obtained a revolver from Landin's car and placed it near Landin's body to make it look like a suicide. Before leaving the house, Minix broke the gas line on the stove, hoping the house would burn down. He later led police to a spot in the woods where he had hidden the gun he used to shoot Landin.

[7] The State charged Minix with murder, felony murder, burglary, theft, and a firearm enhancement. Following a jury trial, Minix moved for, and the court granted, directed verdicts on the charges of felony murder and burglary. Minix also requested instructions on self-defense and the lesser included offenses of voluntary manslaughter and reckless homicide. The court granted Minix's request for instructions on self-defense and voluntary manslaughter but denied his request for a reckless homicide instruction. The jury found Minix guilty of murder and not guilty of theft. Minix pleaded guilty to the firearm enhancement and was later sentenced to an aggregate sentence of seventy years. He now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Minix argues the trial court abused its discretion when it declined to instruct the jury on reckless homicide as a lesser included offense of murder. Instructing the jury is a matter within the trial court's discretion, and we will reverse only if there is an abuse of that discretion. Cardosi v. State, 128 N.E.3d 1277, 1284 (Ind. 2019).

[9] Further, when a defendant requests a lesser-included offense instruction, the trial court must apply a three-part analysis. Ketcham v. State, 780 N.E.2d 1171, 1177 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied. The first two parts call for the trial court to determine whether the offense is either inherently or factually included in the charged offense. Id. If so, the trial court must then determine whether there is a serious evidentiary dispute regarding any element that distinguishes the two offenses. Id. Our Supreme Court has held that “if, in view of this dispute, a jury could conclude that the lesser offense was committed but not the greater, then it is reversible error for a trial court not to give an instruction, when requested, on the inherently or factually included lesser offense.” Wright v. State, 658 N.E.2d 563, 567 (Ind. 1995). “In our review, ‘we accord the trial court considerable deference, view the evidence in a light most favorable to the decision, and determine whether the trial court's decision can be justified in light of the evidence and circumstances of the case.’ ” Leonard v. State, 80 N.E.3d 878, 885 (Ind. 2017) (quoting Fish v. State, 710 N.E.2d 183, 185 (Ind. 1999)).

[10] Murder is defined as the knowing or intentional killing of another human being. Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(1) (2018). And reckless homicide is defined as the reckless killing of another human being. Ind. Code § 35-42-1-5 (2014). The only distinguishing feature between the elements of murder and reckless homicide is the mens rea required of each offense. McDowell v. State, 102 N.E.3d 924, 931 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. Therefore, reckless homicide is an inherently included offense of murder. Id.

[11] The crux of Minix's appeal concerns the third element of the test. He asserts that there is a serious evidentiary dispute as to whether he knowingly or intentionally killed his father, or whether he recklessly killed him.

[12] In support of his argument, Minix relies on Young v. State, 699 N.E.2d 252 (Ind. 1998). There, Young shot into a crowd of people, striking and killing one person. At his trial for murder, Young requested a jury instruction on reckless homicide, which the trial court declined to give. On appeal, our Supreme Court determined that the evidence regarding Young's state of mind was conflicting. There was evidence that there had been no problems between Young and anyone in the group, including the victim. Further, witnesses could not determine whether Young was shooting at any particular person or just wildly shooting. And, of the six shots Young fired, one hit the victim, and another was found far away in the wall of a nearby home. Based on this evidence, the Court concluded there was a serious evidentiary dispute regarding whether Young committed murder or reckless homicide such that the court erred when it refused to instruct the jury on reckless homicide.

[13] We find the facts of Young distinguishable. First, unlike Young who had no issues with anyone in the group he fired upon, Minix specifically told his ex-girlfriend that he was thinking of killing Landin. He also told his sister that his new girlfriend would hide the body for him. And he admitted to the police that he had a poor relationship with his father. Second, whereas Young's shooting appeared to be erratic, the evidence in this case demonstrates that Landin was shot in the forehead at point-blank range. While Minix acknowledges this evidence, he points to the additional gunshot wound to his father's forearm as proof that he was shooting recklessly rather than knowingly or intentionally.

[14] In sum, Minix maintains the evidence leads to an inference that he was not aiming at his father but rather that there was an “unplanned shoot-out” after he took the gun from his father and fired it aimlessly, hitting the microwave and his father in the process. Appellant's Br. p. 12. However, we see no serious evidentiary dispute concerning Minix's state of mind when he shot Landin.

[15] The evidence most favorable to the court's decision shows that Minix and Landin had a contentious relationship and that Minix wanted to kill his father. The evidence that Landin suffered a gunshot wound to his forehead at pointblank range is not consistent with the random shooting of a handgun. See Sanders v. State, 704 N.E.2d 119, 122-23 (Ind. 1999) (no serious evidentiary dispute to support reckless homicide instruction as lesser included offense of murder where defendant shot victim at close range).

Conclusion

[16] We thus conclude the trial court appropriately refused Minix's instruction on reckless homicide, and we affirm his conviction of murder.

[17] Affirmed.

Najam, Senior Judge.

Vaidik, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.