## Facts

- Tony Gray committed two fast-food restaurant robberies charged as Class B felony robbery based on being “armed with a deadly weapon.”
- In the Arby’s robbery:
  - Gray kept his hand in a jacket pocket, and a black handle was visible.
  - He implied harm would occur if employees did not comply and took about $1,000.
  - No gun was recovered.
- In the Long John Silver’s robbery:
  - Gray again kept an object in his pocket and threatened the manager, stating he could be shot if he did not cooperate.
  - Police apprehended Gray within about 10 seconds and 200 feet of the restaurant.
  - Officers found no gun on Gray, in his car, or in the immediate area; they found an electric shaver in his jacket pocket.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Gray was “armed with a deadly weapon” during the Arby’s robbery.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Gray was “armed with a deadly weapon” during the Long John Silver’s robbery.

## Decision

- The court held the evidence sufficient to support the “armed with a deadly weapon” finding for the Arby’s robbery and affirmed that Class B felony armed-robbery conviction.
- The court held the evidence insufficient to support the “armed with a deadly weapon” finding for the Long John Silver’s robbery.
- The court reduced the Long John Silver’s conviction to robbery without the deadly-weapon enhancement and remanded for resentencing on that count.

## Legal Principles

- On sufficiency review, the court considers only probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict and does not reweigh evidence or assess witness credibility.
- The State need not recover the weapon to prove the defendant was “armed with a deadly weapon,” but the evidence must permit a reasonable inference that an actual deadly weapon was present, not merely that the defendant bluffed.
- Threats and a concealed object may support an inference of an actual weapon when corroborated by physical indicia (e.g., a visible weapon-like feature) and surrounding circumstances.
- When immediate apprehension and a thorough search yield no weapon and reveal a non-weapon object consistent with a bluff, an inference that the defendant was armed may be too speculative to sustain the deadly-weapon enhancement.

## Conclusion

The court drew a distinction between reasonable inference and speculation in armed-robbery enhancements: visible physical indicia supporting an actual weapon sustained the first conviction, but rapid capture and discovery of only a shaver defeated the second, requiring reduction and resentencing.


Gray v. State, 903 N.E.2d 940 (Ind. 2009)