142 N.E.3d 966
Ind. Ct. App.2020Background
- In January 2017 Clinton Loehrlein shot his wife (killing her) and wounded two daughters; he also stabbed himself and resisted police. He was charged with murder, two counts of attempted murder (Level 1), two counts of aggravated battery (Level 3), and resisting law enforcement; a firearm enhancement was filed.
- Loehrlein asserted an insanity defense; two court-appointed experts testified he was sane, while his expert (Dr. Gunter) testified he suffered a mental disease or defect (but also conceded Loehrlein viewed his acts as criminally wrong).
- A five-day jury trial in August 2018 resulted in convictions on all counts; sentencing followed in March 2019 to an aggregate 150 years.
- After trial defense counsel learned the jury foreperson (L.W.), an attorney, had answered “N/A” on questionnaires asking whether she or close relations had been charged with or convicted of a crime and whether she had been a victim or witness; she in fact had been arrested and charged (domestic battery) and had been a victim of domestic abuse.
- L.W.’s post-trial deposition showed evasive and inconsistent explanations for her questionnaire answers; defense counsel and a jury consultant stated they would have investigated or struck her if they had known the true facts.
- The trial court denied Loehrlein’s motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct and refused Loehrlein’s proposed jury instruction defining “wrongfulness” to include moral wrongfulness; the Court of Appeals reversed on juror-misconduct grounds and remanded for a new trial but rejected the instructional claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Loehrlein) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juror misconduct (false questionnaire answers) warranted a new trial | L.W.’s answers were not intentionally dishonest or, if deficient, did not constitute gross misconduct that probably harmed defendant | L.W. lied/withheld material information (being charged; history as a domestic-violence victim) and that deprived defense of opportunity to challenge or strike her | Reversed: juror’s untruthful answers were gross misconduct and probably harmed Loehrlein by denying chance to investigate/strike juror; new trial ordered |
| Whether trial court erred by refusing tendered instruction defining “wrongfulness” to include moral wrongfulness under the insanity statute | The statutory instruction tracked the statute and was sufficient; allowing argument but not the specific tendered instruction was proper | "Wrongfulness" should be defined to include moral as well as legal wrong to inform jury’s insanity analysis | Affirmed: court properly refused the tendered instruction; Van Orden controls and counsel could argue moral-wrongfulness to jury |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984) (two-part test for obtaining a new trial when a juror failed to answer honestly during voir dire)
- State v. Dye, 784 N.E.2d 469 (Ind. 2003) (applies McDonough two-part test in Indiana and treats juror deceit as basis for new trial when it likely affected fairness)
- Warner v. State, 773 N.E.2d 239 (Ind. 2002) (omission on questionnaire did not amount to gross misconduct or probable harm where juror testified to impartiality and evidence was overwhelming)
- Van Orden v. State, 469 N.E.2d 1153 (Ind. 1984) (rejects defendant’s proposed instruction equating insanity defense with delusion-based moral justification; statutory instruction is adequate)
- O’Connell v. State, 970 N.E.2d 168 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (standards for reviewing jury-instruction decisions and requirement that instructions correctly state the law and be supported by evidence)