Kenneth Ketcham, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Following a jury trial, Kenneth Ketcham appeals his conviction for Level 1 felony attempted murder,¹ arguing the State presented insufficient evidence. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On July 3, 2023, Kimberly and Gary Braasch hosted their annual Fourth of July party and fireworks show at their home in Monterey, Indiana. Darrin Kletz and his family arrived at the party in his red truck, which he parked down the street from the Braasches’ house.

[3] Ketcham lived near the Braasches and he was at home drinking alcohol during the party. After eating dinner, he took his blood pressure medication and some pain medication. Ketcham's last memory from the evening was “hearing firework going off ․ and I thought—you know, I wanted to make a little bit of noise ․ so I thought I'll just go get my 9-millimeter and shoot it around a few times to make some noise.” Tr. Vol. 4 at 79.

[4] Kimberly saw Ketcham walk over to the party after the fireworks show. Ketcham pointed a “silver and black” gun at her and accused her of sending a “red truck over at my house to drive by ․ and kill me[.]” Tr. Vol. 3 at 39–40. Gary approached a few minutes later and forced Ketcham off the property. Ketcham left, walking through the post office parking lot toward his home.

[5] Meanwhile, Kletz and his family were loading up their truck and leaving the party. As Kletz drove past the post office toward the intersection, Ketcham ran out in front of the truck. Kletz stated Ketcham “look[ed] at me, pulled up a pistol, and tried to shoot me through the windshield of my truck.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 166. As Ketcham raised the handgun, Kletz accelerated his truck and started to turn onto the next road. The first bullet hit the hood, followed by shots to the front fender and the passenger side door. As Kletz drove away, he heard more gunshots and saw flashes of gunfire in his mirrors. He estimated there were “six to eight” shots in total. Id. at 189.

[6] Deputies Matthew Scott and Andrew Speer responded to 9-1-1 calls from the Kletz and Braasch families and arrested Ketcham at his home later that night. Deputy Scott and Sergeant Seth Barton then obtained a search warrant for Ketcham's house and located a silver and black 9-millimeter handgun on the kitchen table and a used magazine in the bedroom. Other officers performed sweeps of the post office parking lot and located casings matching the magazine rounds.

[7] The State charged Ketcham with seven offenses, including attempted murder.  ² At trial, Deputy Scott testified he interviewed the Braasch and Kletz families the day after the incident and observed the damage done to Kletz's truck. He noted the ricochet mark on the hood from the first shot “suggest[ed] that it was actually going towards the driver as it hit the hood and then deflected.” Tr. Vol. 4 at 12. Ketcham testified in his defense, stating he did not remember anything between wanting to shoot his nine-millimeter into the ground and “waking up in jail.” Id. at 80.

[8] The jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts. The trial court merged two counts for double jeopardy purposes, entered judgment of conviction on five counts, including attempted murder, and sentenced Ketcham to an aggregate sentence of thirty-five years. Ketcham appeals only his attempted murder conviction.

Standard of Review

[9] Ketcham argues there was insufficient evidence to support his attempted murder conviction. Specifically, Ketcham argues there was insufficient evidence that he acted with specific intent to kill.

[10] A sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim warrants a “deferential standard of review in which we ‘neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility[.]’ ” Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1237, 1244 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Brantley v. State, 91 N.E.3d 566, 570 (Ind. 2018), cert. denied). Instead, we respect the factfinder's exclusive province to weigh conflicting evidence, Phipps v. State, 90 N.E.3d 1190, 1195 (Ind. 2018), and consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences that support the judgment of the trier of fact, Hall v. State, 177 N.E.3d 1183, 1191 (Ind. 2021). We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable factfinder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Teising v. State, 226 N.E.3d 780, 783 (Ind. 2024). It is “not necessary that the evidence ‘overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.’ ” Sallee v. State, 51 N.E.3d 130, 133 (Ind. 2016) (quoting Moore v. State, 652 N.E.2d 53, 55 (Ind. 1995)).

There is sufficient evidence Ketcham acted with intent to kill.

[11] A person who knowingly or intentionally kills another human being commits murder. I.C. § 35-42-1-1(1). A person attempts to commit a crime when that person engages in conduct that constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of the crime. I.C. § 35-41-5-1(a). To convict Ketcham of attempted murder as charged, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Ketcham knowingly or intentionally engaged in conduct constituting a substantial step toward killing Kletz. I.C. § 35-42-1-1(1); I.C. § 35-41-5-1(a); Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 48 (charging information). Ketcham challenges only the sufficiency of the evidence that he acted with specific intent to kill.

[12] “[F]or a person to be convicted of attempted murder, ‘the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant [acted] with intent to kill the victim.’ ” Gary v. State, 124 N.E.3d 90, 93 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (quoting Spradlin v. State, 569 N.E.2d 948, 950 (Ind. 1991)) (brackets in Gary). “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). Here, Ketcham accused Kimberly of sending a red truck by his house to kill him. Later, Ketcham stepped in front of Kletz's red truck, looked at him, pulled his gun, and shot, hitting the hood near where Kletz was sitting. Ketcham fired multiple times at the truck as Kletz drove away. Deputy Scott inspected the truck the next day and observed that the ricochet mark on the hood indicated the shot “was actually going towards the driver as it hit the hood and then deflected.” Tr. Vol. 4 at 12.

[13] “[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); see also Schuler v. State, 112 N.E.3d 180, 188 (Ind. 2018) (“Intent to kill may be inferred from the intentional use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death or great bodily injury.”)

[14] Ketcham argues he had no intent to kill because “he had no independent recollection of the shooting.” Appellant's Br. at 12. But voluntary intoxication is not a defense to a crime. See I.C. § 35-41-2-5. And to the extent Ketcham relies solely on his testimony at trial, he requests we reweigh the evidence in his favor, which we cannot do. See Hancz-Barron, 235 N.E.3d at 1244.

[15] There is sufficient evidence from which a jury could infer Ketcham intended to kill Kletz.

Conclusion

[16] Sufficient evidence supports Ketcham's conviction.

[17] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(1) (2018) (murder) and I.C. § 35-41-5-1(a) (2014) (attempt).

2.   In addition to the attempted murder charge, the State charged Ketcham with four counts of criminal recklessness and two counts of pointing a firearm.

Kenworthy, Judge.

Bradford, J., and Pyle, J., concur.