Charles R. Whittington v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
05A02-1512-CR-2359
Ind. Ct. App.Feb 21, 2017Background
- In February 2015 Charles R. Whittington entered an apartment complex and fatally shot Shane Williamson and Shane’s 14-year-old daughter, Katelin; he was arrested the same day.
- The State charged Whittington with two counts of murder and sought firearm-use sentencing enhancements; Whittington asserted insanity at trial.
- At arrest he spoke to a Portland officer before Hartford City officers arrived; Miranda warnings were given before a formal interview by Hartford City investigators.
- A jury convicted Whittington of both murders and found firearm-use beyond a reasonable doubt; the trial court imposed consecutive maximum sentences (65 years per murder + 20-year firearm enhancements) for an aggregate 170 years.
- The Court of Appeals considered three issues on appeal: admissibility of post-arrest statements (Miranda/Seibert challenge), whether the verdict should have been guilty but mentally ill (GBMI), and whether the 170-year sentence was inappropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Whittington) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of statements | Statements admissible because no interrogation occurred before Miranda; officer merely listened | Police used a Seibert “question-first” technique; pre-Miranda interrogation tainted post-warning statements | Held for State: no pre-Miranda interrogation shown; pre-warning officer did not ask questions, so Seibert inapplicable; statements admissible |
| GBMI verdict | Jury entitled to weigh conflicting evidence and reject GBMI; evidence supported guilt | Jury should have returned guilty but mentally ill under I.C. §35-36-1-1 given diagnoses and history | Held for State: defendant waived statutory argument and, on merits, evidence was conflicting and supported guilt over GBMI |
| Sentencing—abuse of discretion | Trial court properly identified mitigators and aggravators and did not improperly weigh them | Trial court failed to give proper weight to mental illness and relied on improper aggravator (depreciation of seriousness) | Held for State: no abuse—court acknowledged mental illness as mitigator and properly used aggravator; even if error, harmless |
| Sentencing—appropriateness under App. R. 7(B) | Maximum consecutive terms appropriate given brutality, victims (including a child), and defendant’s character | Defendant’s mental-illness history and limited/remote criminal record make maximum sentence inappropriate | Held for State: sentence not inappropriate; facts show depravity, planning, and lack of nexus between mental illness and crimes, justifying maximum consecutive terms |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004) (pre-warning interrogation that extracts a confession can render subsequent post-Miranda statements inadmissible)
- Fuqua v. State, 984 N.E.2d 709 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (standard for appellate review of evidentiary rulings)
- Satterfield v. State, 33 N.E.3d 344 (Ind. 2015) (high deference to jury when reviewing claims jury should have returned GBMI)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (framework for reviewing sentencing for abuse of discretion)
- Mathews v. State, 849 N.E.2d 578 (Ind. 2006) (aggravator that a lesser sentence would depreciate seriousness is permissible)
- Buchanan v. State, 767 N.E.2d 967 (Ind. 2002) (maximum sentences generally for "worst of the worst" offenders)