Daniel Brewington v. State of Indiana
981 N.E.2d 585
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- Brewington and Melissa Brewington were divorced; custody evaluated by Dr. Connor and Dr. Sara Jones-Connor with joint custody rejected.
- Brewington posted abusive material about Dr. Connor and Judge Humphrey, including publishing addresses and urging complaints to boards.
- A Dearborn County grand jury charged six counts: intimidation of Dr. Connor (A misdemeanor), intimidation of Judge Humphrey (D felony), intimidation of Mrs. Humphrey (A misdemeanor), attempted obstruction of justice (D felony), perjury (D felony), and unlawful disclosure of grand jury proceedings (B misdemeanor).
- Trial court granted an anonymous jury due to prior disclosures about Brewington; verdicts were entered on five counts with Count VI resolved by jury later.
- On appeal, the court vacated two intimidation convictions (Counts I and III), affirmed others, and remanded for entry of judgment consistent with the vacaturs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether anonymous jury impaneled was proper | State contends strong need for protection; court balanced rights and safety. | Brewington argues anonymity infringes right to a fair jury and presumption of innocence. | No abuse of discretion; proper protection with safeguards. |
| Admission of custody evaluation and divorce decree | Documents relevant to motive and basis of charges; probative value outweighs prejudice. | Documents were unfairly prejudicial; lack proper foundation and possible hearsay issues. | Waived for evidentiary challenge but considered on ineffective assistance grounds; admission deemed harmless. |
| Double jeopardy when convicting intimidation of Dr. Connor and attempted obstruction | Evidence supported both offenses; separate harms. | Overlapping facts allow same elements for both offenses; violate double jeopardy. | Count I vacated; double jeopardy violated due to overlapping evidentiary facts. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for remaining convictions | Evidence showed non-violent threats and coercion; warrants convictions for intimidation, obstruction, and perjury. | Challenged several sufficiency aspects; inconsistent or insufficient proof of threats and false statements. | Support exists for intimidation of Judge Humphrey, intimidation of Mrs. Humphrey (vacated), attempted obstruction, and perjury; other issues unresolved due to vacatur. |
| Jury instructions on free speech and true threats | Instructions adequately informed true-threat concept and First Amendment considerations. | Needed true-threat framing and defamation-analog reasoning for intimidation claims. | No fundamental error; instructions adequate given the statutory threat definitions and case law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Major v. State, 873 N.E.2d 1120 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (anonymous juries require strong protective showing balanced against rights)
- Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999) (double jeopardy based on overlapping elements and evidence)
- Johnson v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1103 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (overlap in evidentiary facts governs dual convictions under Richardson)
- Guffey v. State, 717 N.E.2d 103 (Ind. 1999) (double jeopardy vacatur when same evidentiary facts support multiple offenses)
- Meek v. State, 185 N.E.3d 196 (Ind. 1933) (historical analogies to intimidation/blackmail offenses)