Charles S. Whitham v. State of Indiana
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 775
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- On July 31, 2012, Charles S. Whitham attacked his grandmother, Velma Brown, choking her into unconsciousness and causing severe neck injuries; she later reported prior assaults by Whitham in May 2012 and the day before the attack.
- The State charged Whitham with attempted murder (Count I), aggravated battery (Count II), two batteries (Counts III–IV), criminal confinement (Count V), and strangulation (Count VI), all arising from the July 31 incident.
- At trial the State admitted Brown’s testimony about the two prior incidents, a blood-stained evening gown from the pre-July 31 event, photographs of Brown’s neck injuries, expert testimony from Dr. Dean Hawley (who opined the injuries were ligature strangulation based on photos), and a redacted jailhouse phone call in which Whitham discussed Brown being the State’s “prime witness.”
- A jury convicted Whitham on all counts; the trial court imposed concurrent sentences totaling an aggregate 36 years.
- On appeal Whitham challenged admission of the prior-act testimony, Dr. Hawley’s expert opinion, and the jailhouse call; the court also raised double jeopardy sua sponte.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Whitham) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of prior incidents (Rule 404(b)) | Prior assaults show motive/hostility and relationship context, thus relevant and admissible | Prior incidents were improper propensity evidence/not sufficiently similar or timely | Admitted: trial court did not abuse discretion; prior hostile incidents explained motive and were permissible under Rule 404(b) |
| Admission of expert testimony (Dr. Hawley) | Expert relied on photos and qualifications; opinion that injury was ligature strangulation was proper | Opinion speculative: no personal exam, no contemporaneous treatment for ligature, could be result of prior gown incident | Admitted: no abuse of discretion; experts may opine from photos and credibility/weight go to jury |
| Admission of redacted jailhouse phone call | Call shows consciousness of guilt and attempts to influence witness, thus relevant | Call was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial | Admitted: relevant to consciousness of guilt; defendant failed to preserve Rule 403 objection to redacted version on appeal |
| Double jeopardy — multiple convictions from single conduct | N/A (court raised issue) | N/A | Reversed as to Counts II–VI: aggravated battery, criminal confinement, both batteries, and strangulation vacated as lesser-included offenses of attempted murder (Count I affirmed); remanded to vacate those convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. State, 36 N.E.3d 459 (Ind. 2015) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- Hicks v. State, 690 N.E.2d 215 (Ind. 1997) (hostility in a relationship is a paradigmatic motive; prior domestic assaults often admissible)
- Malinski v. State, 794 N.E.2d 1071 (Ind. 2003) (medical experts may testify from photographs without personal examination)
- Wentz v. State, 766 N.E.2d 351 (Ind. 2002) (conviction for an offense and its lesser-included offenses violates double jeopardy)
- Meriweather v. State, 659 N.E.2d 133 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (aggravated battery can be inherently lesser-included to attempted murder)