Dabian D. Boyd v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
71A03-1702-PC-357
| Ind. Ct. App. | Sep 27, 2017Background
- On May 5, 2012, Kalyn Farmer and Mercedes Newbill were shot; Farmer later died; Newbill was found dead in a car the next morning. Crime-scene work placed the shooter in the rear passenger seat; Boyd’s fingerprints were lifted from the outside of the rear passenger-side door.
- Jailhouse informant Jermon Gavin testified that Boyd confessed in jail and gave details only the shooter would know; Gavin’s account included unique details corroborated by police and by a buyer (Thomas) who said he bought a .38 revolver from Boyd days after the shootings.
- A prosecutor’s letter to Gavin’s counsel (admitted at trial) included the sentence: “Investigators and I have found Mr. Gavin’s statement to be accurate and trustworthy,” which Boyd argued was improper vouching.
- At trial, defense counsel did not impeach Cheryl Holt with a prior inconsistent statement (about the direction Boyd approached a house) and did not seek redaction of the vouching language after the court overruled his objection.
- Boyd was convicted of two counts of murder; on direct appeal sufficiency was affirmed. He then sought post-conviction relief arguing ineffective assistance for (1) failing to impeach Holt, (2) failing to get the vouching language redacted, and (3) failing to raise the vouching issue on direct appeal.
- The post-conviction court denied relief; the Court of Appeals affirmed—finding counsel deficient on the three performance claims but concluding Boyd failed to prove prejudice given physical evidence and corroborating testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Boyd) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial counsel failed to impeach witness Cheryl Holt with prior inconsistent statement | Counsel’s choice was strategic; Holt appeared hesitant and not credible, so impeachment was unnecessary | Failure to impeach deprived Boyd of effective assistance and left damaging testimony unchallenged | Court: Counsel’s failure was deficient (not a reasonable strategy) but no resulting prejudice to Boyd |
| Trial counsel failed to request redaction of prosecutor’s vouching sentence in letter to Gavin’s counsel | Admission was harmless; strategy explanation plausible; context (plea negotiations) reduced vouching force | Failure to seek redaction was objectively unreasonable and permitted impermissible vouching before the jury | Court: Counsel’s failure was deficient but no prejudice shown given other strong evidence |
| Appellate counsel failed to raise vouching claim on direct appeal | Issue-selection on appeal is strategic; raising insufficient-evidence was reasonable | Appellate counsel should have raised the obvious vouching error preserved at trial | Court: Failure to raise the issue was deficient performance on appeal but Boyd failed to show prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Timberlake v. State, 753 N.E.2d 591 (Ind. 2001) (post-conviction review limits and standard for appellate waiver claims)
- Trujillo v. State, 962 N.E.2d 110 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (ineffective-assistance framework applied)
- Hamilton v. State, 43 N.E.3d 628 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (context can affect whether a statement constitutes improper vouching)