Shane Cameron Hunter, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Shane Cameron Hunter was convicted of Level 3 felony aggravated battery and Level 5 felony criminal recklessness after shooting Christian Lenoir in the torso outside a bar in Terre Haute. After the shooting, Lenoir was taken by ambulance to Union Hospital in Terre Haute and later airlifted to IU Methodist in Indianapolis for further treatment. At trial, the State presented Lenoir's medical records from Union Hospital, which showed that (1) he was administered fentanyl and morphine, (2) the blood bank had to be called, (3) his “history [was] limited due to [his] condition,” and (4) he suffered the following injuries: a fractured sternum, a hemothorax and pulmonary contusion in his chest, a spleen laceration, a hematoma in his abdomen, and “[d]isruption of the posterior wall of the stomach.” Ex. 167. The State also presented photos of the shirt, jacket, shorts, socks, shoes, and hat Lenoir was wearing when Hunter shot him, all of which were stained with blood.

[2] On appeal, Hunter argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for Level 3 felony aggravated battery. He doesn't dispute that he shot Lenoir but contends that the State failed to prove that the injury he inflicted on Lenoir created a substantial risk of death—an element of aggravated battery as charged here. See Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.5; Appellant's App. Vol. 2 p. 19. Hunter's argument rests on the fact that neither Lenoir nor a medical expert testified at trial. But “[i]n reviewing sufficiency claims, we look at what evidence was presented to the jury, not at what evidence was not presented.” Meehan v. State, 7 N.E.3d 255, 259 (Ind. 2014); see also Oeth v. State, 775 N.E.2d 696, 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (explaining that expert medical testimony is not required to prove the “substantial risk of death” element of aggravated battery), reh'g denied, trans. denied. And the evidence presented to the jury here—that Hunter shot Lenoir in the torso, Lenoir's medical records, and the photos of Lenoir's blood-stained clothing—was more than sufficient to establish that the injury Hunter inflicted on Lenoir created a substantial risk of death. See, e.g., Oeth, 775 N.E.2d at 702 (concluding that jury could have reasonably inferred that victim's injuries created a substantial risk of death where victim lost consciousness, was profusely bleeding, and required stitches, and jury was shown photos of victim's wounds and blood pools at crime scene); Mateo v. State, 981 N.E.2d 59, 72 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (affirming aggravated-battery conviction where victim's “medical condition was sufficiently grave so as to necessitate his transfer to a Fort Wayne hospital via helicopter”), trans. denied.

[3] Because the evidence supports Hunter's conviction for Level 3 felony aggravated battery, and his argument amounts to a request to reweigh the evidence, we affirm.

[4] Affirmed.

Vaidik, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Scheele, J., concur.