Jacob Michael Moran, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] On August 28, 2023, Jacob Moran and his father, Shaun Moran, got into an argument which became physical. Jacob left Shaun's home but returned later to physically attack Shaun, and, as he was leaving Shaun's home again, threatened that he would return with his “piece.” That night, Jacob returned with his gun and shot and killed Shaun through a window in his garage. Jacob was charged with multiple offenses, including murder. A jury found Moran guilty as charged, and the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of fifty-seven years. Jacob contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he had had the requisite intent to commit murder. Because we disagree, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In August of 2023, Shaun and his wife, Melissa, lived in Greenwood with their three-year-old daughter, Melissa's sons, and Shaun's son, Jacob. On the morning of August 28, 2023, Jacob, who had been living in the garage, went inside the house through the back door while Shaun was getting ready for the day. At some point, Jacob and Shaun began to argue, and Shaun told Jacob that he had to leave. Jacob reacted “aggressively and defiantly[,]” attacking Shaun. Tr. Vol. I p. 233. Jacob “attacked [Shaun] physically and was coming at him with rage.” Tr. Vol. I p. 233. Melissa's son Mark was able to pull Jacob off Shaun and escorted him out of the house. The family called 911 and reported what had happened.

[3] Hours after this incident, Jacob returned a second time, making a “beeline” for Shaun and attacking him from behind. Tr. Vol. I p. 238. The second attack was more aggressive than the first. Eventually, Mark was again able to remove Jacob from Shaun, and Shaun called 911. As Jacob was being pushed out of the door, he looked towards Shaun and said, “ ‘I'll be back with my piece.’ ” Tr. Vol. I p. 240.

[4] Later that evening, Shaun went to the garage to pack Jacob's things and secure the home. Around the same time, neighbor Ashley Ferrell was outside walking her dog when she observed Jacob's white BMW “creeping up from the back way” heading south. Tr. Vol. II p. 74. Ferrell was approximately fifteen to twenty feet away from Jacob when she observed him “pulling up [․] very slow[.]” Tr. Vol. II p. 75. After Jacob parked his car, Ferrell went into her home, closed the door, and heard a gunshot. Ferrell looked out of the window and saw Jacob “running back to his car, jump[ing] in it and t[aking] off.” Tr. Vol. II p. 76. Ferrell dialed 911.

[5] In the house, Melissa “heard an extremely loud gun shot” and, “the most ungodly sound come out of [her] husband.” Tr. Vol. I p. 245. Melissa found Shaun's body “laying up against the door[,]” with “a lot of blood comin[g] out of his back.” Tr. Vol. I p. 248. Police arrived within minutes and pulled Melissa from Shaun, who was lying face down on his stomach with a “significant amount of blood” pooling underneath him. Tr. Vol. II p. 94

[6] Police found a shell casing from a .40 caliber handgun outside the open garage window in the grassy area by the gravel driveway and believed the shot to have been fired from outside the garage. During the course of the investigation, Greenwood Police Department Deputy Chief Aaron Hagist observed that, outside of the garage window, “the closer I got to the window, you could see everything inside the garage.” Tr. Vol. II p. 125. Officer Brandon Cox was also able to see through the window and into the garage standing within ten to fifteen feet of the window. Crime Scene Specialist Lydia Griffiths could also see into the garage by standing next to the window. Shaun's autopsy determined that his cause of death was a gunshot wound to the back.

[7] Meanwhile, Jacob had gone to an ATM machine and withdrawn $320.00. Jacob also purchased a Garmin GPS at a Walmart in Lebanon. Jacob visited his mother around midnight. When he arrived, he was emotional, upset, “pacing back and forth” and crying. Tr. Vol. III p. 33. After speaking with Jacob, his mother went to the police station to give a statement “because [she] didn't know at that time whether Shaun [․] was bleeding out or dead[.]” Tr. Vol. III p. 31.

[8] In a recorded police statement, Jacob's mother told police that Jacob had informed her that he had shot Shaun. Jacob's mother stated to police that Jacob had told her that he had seen Shaun through the window going through his belongings, yelled at him, and shot through the window. Jacob indicated to his mother that he had shot Shaun in the back. Jacob's mother also indicated that it had “ticked [Jacob] off” to see Shaun going through his things. Tr. Vol. III p. 39. Officers later located Jacob in Michigan.

[9] On September 7, 2023, the State charged Jacob with murder and Level 6 felony domestic battery committed in the presence of a child less than sixteen years old. On November 1, 2024, the State amended the charging information to add a second count of Level 6 felony battery committed in the presence of a child less than sixteen years old, Level 6 felony intimidation, Class A misdemeanor intimidation, and Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass. The State also filed notice of intent to seek an enhanced sentence for Jacob's use of a firearm during the commission of the offenses.

[10] A jury trial commenced on November 12, 2024. At the conclusion of the jury trial, Jacob was found guilty as charged. Jacob waived his right to a jury trial on the firearm enhancement. On January 21, 2025, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of fifty-seven years.

Discussion and Decision

[11] Jacob contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that he had acted with the necessary intent to be found guilty of murder.

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, appellate courts must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. It is the fact-finder's role, not that of appellate courts, to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to support a conviction. To preserve this structure, when appellate courts are confronted with conflicting evidence, they must consider it most favorably to the trial court's ruling. Appellate courts affirm the conviction unless no reasonable factfinder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict.

Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146–47 (Ind. 2007) (internal brackets, citations, and quotations omitted). Stated differently, in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable to the convictions, neither reweighing evidence nor reassessing witness credibility” and “affirm the judgment unless no reasonable factfinder could find the defendant guilty.” Griffith v. State, 59 N.E.3d 947, 958 (Ind. 2016).

[12] To prove that Jacob had committed murder, the State was required to prove that he had “knowingly or intentionally” killed Shaun. Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(1). “A person engages in conduct ‘intentionally’ if, when he engages in the conduct, it is his conscious objective to do so.” Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2(a). “A person engages in conduct ‘knowingly’ if, when he engages in the conduct, he is aware of a high probability that he is doing so.” Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2(b). Moreover, “[i]ntent to kill may be inferred from the intentional use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death or great bodily injury.” Schuler v. State, 112 N.E.3d 180, 188 (Ind. 2018). “[D]ischarging a weapon in the direction of a victim is substantial evidence from which the jury could infer intent to kill.” Corbin v. State, 840 N.E.2d 424, 429 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).

[13] The evidence was sufficient to support the conclusion that Jacob had intentionally killed Shaun. Jacob indicated to his mother that he had shot Shaun through the window. Although Jacob attempts to argue that he was unaware of Shaun's location when he fired the gun, the jury could reasonably conclude that Jacob had seen and aimed at Shaun through the garage window, considering the fact that Jacob had indicated to his mother that he had seen Shaun through the window going through his belongings, yelled at him, and then shot through the window. Jacob had even indicated to his mother that he had shot Shaun in the back. Moreover, several officers testified that when they stood outside of the garage window, they could see inside the garage clearly, including where Shaun's body had been on the ground inside. Again, “discharging a weapon in the direction of a victim is substantial evidence from which the jury could infer intent to kill.” Id.

[14] The events which occurred hours before Jacob shot Shaun further support the conclusion that Jacob intentionally killed Shaun. Jacob had had two violent physical altercations with Shaun, with Jacob's second attack on Shaun being more aggressive than the first one. After the second attack, Jacob had even threatened, “I'll be back with my piece[,]” Tr. Vol. I p. 240, and just before shooting Shaun, had “cre[pt] up from the back way” of the house, which the jury could have concluded was done so as to not be noticed. Tr. Vol. II p. 74. “Intent to kill may be inferred from the nature of the attack and circumstances surrounding the crime.” Perez v. State, 872 N.E.2d 208, 214 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. Moreover, after shooting Shaun, Jacob had run back to his car, before “jump[ing] in it and t[aking] off.” Tr. Vol. II p. 76. Jacob had also withdrawn cash, purchased a GPS, and fled to Michigan. “[E]vidence of flight may be considered as circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt.” See Myers v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1069, 1077 (Ind. 2015) (brackets and quotation omitted).

[15] The evidence is sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that Jacob had knowingly or intentionally killed Shaun. Jacob's arguments to the contrary effectively amount to an invitation to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. Griffith, 59 N.E.3d at 958.

[16] We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Bradford, Judge.

Weissmann, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.