Bob Leonard v. State of Indiana, 80 N.E.3d 878

Background

November 2012 Richmond Hill explosion destroyed Monserrate Shirley’s home and fatally injured neighbors John and Jennifer Longworth; cause determined to be intentional natural-gas ignition originating at Shirley’s house.
Bob Leonard (defendant) participated in multiple planned attempts to ignite Shirley’s house for insurance money, including manipulating the gas fireplace, sealing the house, researching gas behavior, and setting a timed ignition.
Leonard negotiated a share of insurance proceeds, accepted funds to buy parts, programmed a microwave timer to ignite at 11:00 p.m., and left the house before the explosion.
Prosecutors charged Leonard with multiple felonies including two counts of knowing murder, conspiracy to commit arson, and numerous arson counts; jury convicted on all counts.
At penalty phase the trial court (bench trial for sentencing) found three aggravators proved and imposed consecutive Life Without Parole (LWOP) sentences for the murder convictions plus lengthy terms for arson and conspiracy.
On direct appeal Leonard challenged: (1) sufficiency of evidence for knowing murder convictions; (2) sufficiency of proof for one statutory aggravator (burned/mutilated while alive); (3) denial of a lesser-included reckless-homicide jury instruction; and (4) constitutionality of Indiana’s LWOP statute under Hurst.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Leonard)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for knowing murder convictions	Evidence supports that Leonard knowingly created a high probability of death by filling a home with gas and providing an ignition source near neighboring houses at night.	Leonard lacked awareness that deaths to nearby residents were a highly probable result given purported efforts to avoid harming occupants and plan for a "small fire."	Affirmed — reasonable inferences support that Leonard acted knowingly (high probability of death), including use of gas as a deadly instrument and timing/location factors.
Sufficiency of proof for aggravator (burned/mutilated while alive, I.C. § 35-50-2-9(b)(11))	Prosecutor need only prove the victim was burned while alive; evidence (soot in lungs, charred body) established that.	Argues subsection requires intentionality (must prove defendant intentionally burned/mutilated the living victim).	Affirmed — court follows reasoning from related precedent rejecting an intent requirement; subsection satisfied by evidence that victim was burned while alive.
Denial of reckless-homicide lesser-included instruction	State: reckless homicide is lesser-included but no serious evidentiary dispute distinguishing knowing vs. reckless; overwhelming evidence of knowing conduct.	Leonard: disputed culpability (knowing vs. reckless) warranted instruction because result was unanticipated or could be reckless.	Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; no serious evidentiary dispute given extensive evidence of deliberate, escalating acts supporting knowing culpability.
Constitutionality of Indiana’s LWOP statute under Hurst v. Florida	State: Indiana’s LWOP scheme is constitutional (court previously upheld it); jury finding beyond reasonable doubt not required because defendant waived jury for penalty phase.	Leonard: statute unconstitutional post-Hurst because it does not require jury to find aggravators outweigh mitigators beyond a reasonable doubt.	Affirmed — court rejects Hurst-based challenge, following prior decision; statute not held unconstitutional here.

Key Cases Cited

Suggs v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1190 (Ind. 2016) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence on appeal)
Young v. State, 761 N.E.2d 387 (Ind. 2002) (knowledge may be inferred from facts and use of a deadly weapon)
Mark Leonard v. State, 73 N.E.3d 155 (Ind. 2017) (same court’s recent decision addressing similar facts and issues, including mens rea and aggravator interpretation)
Fish v. State, 710 N.E.2d 183 (Ind. 1999) (trial-court discretion and analysis for lesser-included offense instructions)
Isom v. State, 31 N.E.3d 469 (Ind. 2015) (three-part test for giving lesser-included offense instructions)
Heavrin v. State, 675 N.E.2d 1075 (Ind. 1996) (deference to trial court’s decision not to give instruction when evidence fails to create serious dispute)
Nicholson v. State, 768 N.E.2d 443 (Ind. 2002) (discussion of intent and aggravated circumstances language)