Tavitas, J.
Following a bench trial, Augustus Mitchell was convicted of battery by means of a deadly weapon, a handgun, a Level 5 felony, and carrying a handgun without a license, a Class A misdemeanor. Mitchell appeals and argues that his conviction for battery by means of a deadly weapon cannot stand because the State did not prove that the handgun he used to batter the victim was a deadly weapon. Because we conclude otherwise, we affirm.
…
Mitchell argues that the State failed to establish that he used a handgun in a manner that could have caused serious bodily injury. Mitchell contends that he used the handgun as a cudgel to strike Starks and not as a firearm. Mitchell also notes that the State failed to admit the firearm into evidence and failed to present testimony regarding the characteristics of the handgun, i.e., the caliber, weight, and size. Without such evidence, Mitchell argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that the handgun was a deadly weapon. We disagree with Mitchell’s contentions.
The relevant statute defines a deadly weapon as a loaded or unloaded firearm. Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-86(a). By including an unloaded firearm within the definition, the General Assembly’s intent is clear that the firearm need not be fired in order to be used as a deadly weapon. See Murphy v. State, 453 N.E.2d 1026, 1027 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983) (holding that firearm need not be fired to be used as a deadly weapon).
Here, the State presented evidence that the handgun used by Mitchell was a firearm within the meaning of the statute. Mitchell himself testified that his handgun used bullets in a magazine. And the photographs introduced as evidence depict a firearm. Ex. Vol. I, State’s Exs. 22-24. In addition, one of the police officers on the scene testified that a “firearm” was retrieved at the scene. Tr. Vol. II p. 39. When shown the photos of the handgun found at the scene, this officer testified that it depicted “the firearm that was recovered on scene.” Id. Therefore, by definition, Mitchell used a deadly weapon—a firearm—to batter Starks. The evidence is sufficient to support his conviction for battery by means of a deadly weapon.
Moreover, the State also presented evidence that the handgun was a weapon that, in the manner in which it was used, could ordinarily be used, or was intended to be used, was readily capable of causing serious bodily injury.
…
Mitchell argues that the State produced no evidence that his use of the handgun caused serious bodily injury to Starks. The statute, however, requires only that the weapon have the ability to cause serious bodily injury under the circumstances and that the defendant had the apparent ability to seriously injure the victim with the object. See id. The statutory language requires only that the weapon is readily capable of causing serious bodily injury in the manner in which it was used, could be used, or was intended to be used. I.C. § 35-31.5-2-86(a). There is no requirement that the weapon caused such injury.
The photos presented at trial depict the firearm at issue as a metal handgun, and Starks testified that Mitchell beat him over the head with this handgun. As a result of being struck with the handgun, Mitchell suffered multiple lacerations to his head and bled profusely. Under these circumstances, the trial court could reasonably conclude that the handgun was a weapon that was readily capable of causing serious bodily injury in both the manner in which it could be used and was actually used. This is sufficient to establish that the handgun was a deadly weapon.
We find support for this conclusion in Murphy, supra. In that case, the defendant was convicted of battery by means of a deadly weapon after he hit the victim over the head with a shotgun. On appeal, Murphy claimed that the State failed to prove the use of a deadly weapon because he merely hit the victim with the shotgun and did not shoot him. We rejected this argument, stating, “Murphy’s shotgun did not need to be fired in order to be used as a deadly weapon; a firearm used as a bludgeoning instrument is capable of inflicting serious bodily injury.” 453 N.E.2d at 1027 (emphasis added).
…
The same is true here—the handgun used by Mitchell to strike Starks was both a firearm and a weapon that was readily capable of causing serious bodily injury in the manner in which it was used, could be used, or was intended to be used. The trial court could reasonably conclude that the handgun was, therefore, a deadly weapon and that Mitchell used this deadly weapon while committing the battery against Starks. Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to support Mitchell’s conviction for battery by means of a deadly weapon.
The State presented evidence sufficient to support Mitchell’s conviction for battery by means of a deadly weapon. The handgun Mitchell used to batter Starks was a firearm, which is a deadly weapon. The handgun was also a deadly weapon in that it was readily capable of causing serious bodily injury in both the manner in which it could be used and was used. We, therefore, affirm Mitchell’s conviction
Affirmed.
Riley, J., and May, J., concur.