160 N.E.3d 526
Ind. Ct. App.2020Background
- Victim Steven Marquand was shot and killed at a gas-station parking lot after displaying cash; Damonta Jarrett followed him into the lot, demanded money, and shot him when Marquand refused.
- State charged Jarrett with murder and felony murder; charging information was later amended to add Level 5 attempted robbery and firearm enhancements; Jarrett admitted firearm use at separate hearing.
- Key trial evidence: forensic pathologist confirmed death by gunshot; homicide investigator testified regarding identification and that DNA testing could not be submitted until Jarrett was in custody.
- Defense moved for mistrial twice: (1) after testimony that Jarrett was taken into custody months after the offense (argued to imply flight), and (2) after Jarrett told the judge “happy birthday” (judge said she felt uncomfortable).
- Jury convicted Jarrett of murder, felony murder, and attempted robbery; felony-murder conviction was vacated at sentencing. Trial court imposed 57 years for murder and an enhanced 8 years for attempted robbery (3-year advisory + 5-year firearm enhancement), ordered consecutively for a 65-year total.
- On appeal the court applied the Indiana Supreme Court’s Wadle framework for double-jeopardy claims, rejected Jarrett’s double-jeopardy, mistrial, and sentencing challenges, and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double jeopardy (murder + Level 5 attempted robbery) | State: Wadle framework governs; statutes do not clearly bar multiple punishments and offenses are not included in one another. | Jarrett: convictions violate Indiana double-jeopardy (argued under prior Richardson/actual-evidence approach). | No double jeopardy. Neither offense is an included offense of the other under I.C. §35‑31.5‑2‑168; Wadle controls. |
| Mistrial — investigator testimony about custody timing (implied flight) | State: testimony was factual and innocuous; court gave a limiting instruction that custody is not proof of guilt. | Jarrett: testimony suggested he fled after the killing, prejudicing the jury and requiring a mistrial. | Denied. No grave peril shown; limiting instruction cured any potential prejudice. |
| Mistrial — defendant’s “happy birthday” remark to judge | State: remarks and the judge’s private discomfort did not reach the jury or show bias. | Jarrett: judge’s expressed discomfort showed bias and compromised a fair trial. | Denied. Remarks occurred outside jurors’ presence and defendant failed to prove judicial bias. |
| Sentencing — consecutive terms & firearm enhancement | State: aggravating factors supported enhancement and consecutive sentences; statute permits one firearm enhancement per single episode applied to a qualifying offense. | Jarrett: trial court abused discretion by failing to state separate reasons for consecutive sentences; subsection (i) of firearm‑enhancement statute bars enhancement when offenses are a single episode. | Denied. Court may rely on same aggravators for enhancement and consecutive terms; subsection (i) prohibits multiple enhancements for a single episode but allows one enhancement — applied correctly here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wadle v. State, 151 N.E.3d 227 (Ind. 2020) (adopts multi‑step test for double‑jeopardy when a single act violates multiple statutes)
- Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999) (prior "actual evidence" double‑jeopardy test, overruled as to multi‑statute cases)
- Ledesma v. State, 761 N.E.2d 896 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (an attempt crime is an included offense of the completed crime)
- Banks v. State, 761 N.E.2d 403 (Ind. 2002) (curative/admonitory instruction can dispel prejudice and justify denial of mistrial)
- Blanche v. State, 690 N.E.2d 709 (Ind. 1998) (trial court may rely on same aggravating factors both to enhance a sentence and to impose consecutive terms)
- Howell v. State, 97 N.E.3d 253 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (interpreting firearm‑enhancement statute to permit at most one enhancement per single episode of criminal conduct)