Derrick Weedman v. State of Indiana
21 N.E.3d 873
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- In July 2012 Derrick Weedman attacked his stepfather, Ted Schlichter, causing catastrophic facial and brain injuries; Weedman was charged with Class B felony aggravated battery.
- Weedman suffered a prior 2008 traumatic brain injury from a suicide attempt and has psychiatric diagnoses; he initially filed a notice of insanity and underwent court-ordered psychiatric exams but withdrew the insanity defense before trial and asserted self-defense at trial.
- Two court-appointed psychiatrists (Dr. Lieb and Dr. Ross) evaluated Weedman, concluded he was competent and sane, and testified for the State about their evaluations and Weedman’s statements.
- Trial evidence included emergency personnel and detective testimony, medical expert testimony that Schlichter suffered multiple severe blows incompatible with Weedman’s limited account, and Weedman’s own testimony claiming fear due to his brain injury.
- The jury convicted Weedman of aggravated battery; the trial court imposed a 20-year sentence after finding aggravators and no mitigators.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of evidence that defendant filed then withdrew an insanity defense | State: psychiatrists’ findings and defendant’s prior notice were admissible and probative | Weedman: use of court-ordered exams and withdrawn insanity notice violated Fifth Amendment and was irrelevant/prejudicial | Admission was erroneous but not fundamental error given overwhelming evidence of guilt; conviction stands |
| Prosecutorial misconduct — reference to tattoo | State: remark was brief and not outcome-determinative | Weedman: tattoo comment was gratuitous and prejudicial | Court sustained objection at trial; remark not fundamental error or reversible |
| Prosecutorial misconduct — comments/implications about post-arrest silence (Doyle claim) | State: many statements pre-Miranda or innocuous; only limited Doyle issue arose | Weedman: prosecutor and witnesses repeatedly referenced his silence and invocation of counsel to impeach credibility | Even assuming Doyle violations, defendant waived most objections and any error was not fundamental given overwhelming evidence; harmless |
| Admission of testimony about statements by defendant’s mother | State: EMT testimony admitted to impeach mother; detective testimony admissible | Weedman: hearsay and prejudicially undermined self-defense | EMT impeachment use was improperly argued as substantive but harmless; detective testimony not fundamental error |
| Exclusion of photographs of defendant’s 2008 traumatic brain injury | Weedman: photos relevant to reasonableness of fear due to head injury | State: no medical sponsor for photos and evidence of injury already before jury | Exclusion was within trial court’s discretion and harmless because photos were cumulative of other evidence |
| Sufficiency of evidence to rebut self-defense | State: medical and testimonial evidence showed excessive, disproportionate force | Weedman: acted in reasonable fear due to prior TBI and victim’s aggression | Evidence sufficient; jury reasonably found self-defense negated because force used was excessive |
| Sentencing abuse and Rule 7(B) inappropriateness | State: aggravators and offender’s criminal history support sentence | Weedman: mental illness, TBI, and victim provocation warranted mitigation/shorter sentence | Trial court did not abuse discretion; 20-year sentence not inappropriate under Rule 7(B) |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (1981) (limitations on use of psychiatric exam statements against a defendant)
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976) (post-Miranda silence cannot be used to impeach defendant)
- Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. 2010) (contemporaneous-objection rule and narrow fundamental-error exception)
- Brewington v. State, 7 N.E.3d 946 (Ind. 2014) (fundamental-error analysis; judge’s sua sponte duty)
- Fleenor v. State, 622 N.E.2d 140 (Ind. 1993) (waiver of Fifth Amendment privilege when defendant introduces psychiatric evidence for insanity)
- Cardine v. State, 475 N.E.2d 696 (Ind. 1985) (withdrawn insanity defense limits admissibility of other conduct)
- Phelan v. State, 273 Ind. 542 (1980) (distinguishing use of psychiatric statements for sanity vs. guilt)
- Taylor v. State, 659 N.E.2d 535 (Ind. 1995) (State must not use court-ordered psychiatric statements to prove guilt)
- Kubsch v. State, 784 N.E.2d 905 (Ind. 2003) (Doyle error harmlessness factors)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standards for review of sentencing statements and abuse of discretion)