Desmond Turner v. State of Indiana
2011 Ind. LEXIS 858
| Ind. | 2011Background
- Turner was charged in Marion Superior Court with multiple murders, felony murder, criminal confinement, robbery, and burglary, with a seek of life without parole.
- The trial court conducted a bench trial and convicted Turner on all charges, merging murder and felony murder and reducing the robbery to a lesser degree.
- Turner received life without parole for murder, plus consecutive terms for confinement, robbery, and burglary, totaling a life sentence plus eighty-eight years.
- Key forensic evidence involved a firearms tool-mark identification linking unfired cartridge Item 56 to discharged casings from the crime scene, based on marks on the cartridge sidewall.
- Turner challenged admissibility of the firearms evidence, sought to exclude hearsay and other-acts evidence, and argued the evidence was insufficient to prove his participation beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of tool-mark identification testimony | Turner argues the AFTE-based identification is unreliable without a known tool/weapon. | Turner contends the identification depends on subjective analysis and improper methodology. | Abuse of discretion not shown; evidence admissible under Indiana Rule 702 with robust cross-examination. |
| Confrontation and hearsay concerns about Putzek’s testimony | Turner asserts Brundage/Putzek statements were testimonial and violated confrontation. | State argues statements were non-testimonial and admissible hearsay/open-door evidence. | No Confrontation Clause violation; hearsay issue deemed harmless given trial record and purpose of statements. |
| Admission of alleged other-crimes evidence (Rule 404(b)) | Turner claims evidence shows character propensity and is inadmissible. | Prosecution contends evidence shows motive/intent/identity related to the offenses. | Evidence admissible for motive/intent; probative value not outweighed by prejudice. |
| Hearsay by Turner’s mother via Clifton testimony | Turner argues Clifton’s testimony about his mother’s statement is hearsay. | State claims representative/authorization exceptions apply. | Harmless error; substantial independent evidence supports conviction. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence identifying Turner as a perpetrator | Turner claims the proof rests on incredible dubiosity and weak witness credibility. | Cumulative corroboration supports guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. | Viewing all probative evidence and reasonable inferences, a reasonable jury could convict. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (Supreme Court 1993) (non-exclusive reliability factors guiding admissibility of expert evidence; Indiana adopts Daubert-friendly stance)
- Malinski v. State, 794 N.E.2d 1071 (Ind. 2003) (Indiana Rule 702(b) reliability; Daubert is informative, not controlling)
- Kubsch v. State, 784 N.E.2d 905 (Ind. 2003) (application of Daubert-like considerations to Rule 702 reliability)
- Carter v. State, 766 N.E.2d 377 (Ind. 2002) (expert testimony on non-scientific topics; assessment of reliability under 702)
- Steward v. State, 652 N.E.2d 490 (Ind. 1995) (child abuse syndrome testimony—distinguishing treatment-use from testimonial use)
- West v. State, 755 N.E.2d 173 (Ind. 2001) (observational evidence like shoeprint/toeprint ID on margins of reliability)
- Murray v. State, 761 N.E.2d 406 (Ind. 2002) (witness credibility not automatically fatal to admissibility)
- Lytle v. Ford Motor Co., 696 N.E.2d 465 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (weight and admissibility distinctions in cross-examination)