Danielle Green v. State of Indiana
65 N.E.3d 620
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Danielle Green shot her husband Raymond ten times May 26, 2014; after an initial five shots she left, reloaded, returned, and shot him five more times. She concealed the body in a padlocked metal storage box and attempted to conceal bloodied items from the trailer.
- Green gave recorded statements admitting the shooting but claimed self-defense, saying Raymond confronted her armed and threatened to kill her; she also performed a re-enactment for police. She did not testify at trial.
- The State presented forensic evidence (including bullets through bedding and autopsy findings) supporting a theory that Raymond was shot while in bed; a coroner testified many head wounds are immediately incapacitating but could not fix shot order.
- Defense hired Dr. Karla Fischer to evaluate Green for PTSD and effects of long‑term domestic abuse; Green withdrew statutory insanity and "effects of battery" (BWS) affirmative defenses prior to trial. The trial court excluded Dr. Fischer’s testimony about PTSD and BWS as beyond her qualifications and as effectively advancing withdrawn insanity/BWS defenses.
- The court admitted limited crime‑scene testimony from ISP Sergeant Stephen Weigel about blood stain patterns and expirated blood over defense objections; defense argued Weigel was not qualified to interpret spatter.
- A jury convicted Green of murder; the trial court found domestic‑abuse claims not credible and sentenced Green to 60 years (within statutory 45–65 year range). Green appealed evidentiary rulings, sentencing consideration of abuse, and sentence appropriateness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Green) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of Dr. Fischer’s testimony | Exclusion proper because Fischer lacked clinical/forensic licensure, used nonstandard methods, did not test for malingering, and her opinions invaded withdrawn insanity/BWS defenses | Fischer’s PTSD/BWS testimony was relevant to explain Green’s state of mind and support self‑defense and rebut State’s evidence of premeditation | Court: No abuse of discretion; Fischer not qualified to diagnose PTSD or offer PTSD/BWS opinions as presented and excluded testimony was effectively evidence for withdrawn insanity/BWS defenses |
| Admission of blood‑spatter testimony (Sergeant Weigel) | Testimony admissible based on investigator training/experience; qualified as skilled witness and supported by internal ISP expertise | Weigel unqualified to interpret or attach meaning to spatter; such interpretation is expert testimony requiring greater qualifications | Court: No abuse of discretion; Grinstead precedent permits trained officers to testify about spatter; any error would be harmless given other forensic evidence |
| Sentencing: refusal to credit alleged domestic abuse as mitigator | Trial court correctly weighed record and found allegations not credible or corroborated; court discussed and gave no weight | Green argued court abused discretion by refusing to recognize domestic‑abuse evidence as mitigating | Court: No abuse of discretion; court expressly considered the claim, found it unsupported, and permissibly declined to give it mitigating weight |
| Appropriateness of 60‑year sentence | Sentence within statutory range and supported by nature of offense (execution‑style shooting, concealment, lies) and offender character (deception, lack of remorse) | Green contended sentence inappropriate given claimed abuse and other circumstances | Court: Sentence not inappropriate under App. R. 7(B); affirmed 60 years |
Key Cases Cited
- Grinstead v. State, 684 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 1997) (police officer training/experience can suffice to qualify blood‑spatter testimony)
- Marley v. State, 747 N.E.2d 1123 (Ind. 2001) (use of battered‑woman syndrome evidence to negate culpability requires compliance with insanity statute)
- Kubsch v. State, 784 N.E.2d 905 (Ind. 2003) (expert qualifications may rest on knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education)
- Malinski v. State, 794 N.E.2d 1071 (Ind. 2003) (forensic observations admissible when within specialized knowledge even if not scientific)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standards for appellate review of sentencing and when trial court abuses discretion)
- Jimerson v. State, 56 N.E.3d 117 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (deferential review of evidentiary rulings)
- Cook v. State, 743 N.E.2d 563 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)