Deloney v. State
2010 Ind. App. LEXIS 2380
Ind. Ct. App.2010Background
- Deloney was convicted of Class A felony attempted robbery resulting in serious bodily injury and Class A felony burglary resulting in bodily injury after a jury trial.
- The State charged Deloney with attempted robbery, burglary, and murder in connection with the January 22, 2007 shooting death of Lewis James.
- DNA evidence from a red hat at the scene was admitted over Deloney’s objection; the analyst could not exclude Deloney or provide a statistical probability.
- Deloney was acquitted of murder but found guilty of the two Class A felonies; he received consecutive sentences totaling eighty years.
- On appeal, the court held the DNA evidence was improperly admitted but the convictions were supported by substantial independent evidence, and the attempted robbery conviction should be reduced to a Class C felony to avoid double jeopardy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of hat DNA evidence | State contends DNA evidence is admissible for probative value. | Deloney argues the DNA testimony lacked relevance and statistical significance and should not have been admitted. | DNA evidence improperly admitted but harmless error. |
| Double jeopardy from two Class A felonies | State contends convictions can remain; any issue is procedural. | Deloney requests reduction to avoid double jeopardy. | Remand to reduce attempted robbery conviction to Class C to avoid double jeopardy. |
| Aggravating/mitigating factors in sentencing | State argues aggravators were properly considered. | Deloney challenges certain aggravators, including victim's mental infirmity. | Error in considering victim's mental infirmity as aggravator is harmless; may revise burglary sentence if desired. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. State, 702 N.E.2d 668 (Ind. 1998) (non-exclusion DNA evidence can be admitted with proper context)
- Commonwealth v. Mattei, 455 Mass. 840, 920 N.E.2d 845 (Mass. 2010) (non-match DNA requires accompanying statistical significance)
- State v. Tester, 968 A.2d 895 (Vt. 2009) (non-exclusion without statistics is ambiguous for juries)
- State v. Bander, 150 Wash. App. 690, 208 P.3d 1242 (Wash. App. 2009) (inconclusive DNA test results admissible with limitations)
- Sholler v. Commonwealth, 969 S.W.2d 706 (Ky. 1998) (DNA testimony without statistical probabilities may be admissible)
- Nelson v. State, 628 A.2d 69 (Del. 1993) (non-exclusion evidence can assist the trier of fact)
- Hancock v. State, 758 N.E.2d 995 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (distinguishable: involuntary intoxication as an element vs. infirmity as aggravator)
- Roney v. State, 872 N.E.2d 192 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (harmless error where other aggravators support sentence)
- Scheckel v. State, 620 N.E.2d 681 (Ind. 1993) (victim's mental infirmity as aggravator requires support)