Donald Gregory Huls v. State of Indiana
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 369
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Huls appeals two criminal recklessness convictions (Class C and Class D) arising from firing at teenagers at night near his property.
- Teens were walking on Highway 30 near a wooded area; a gunshot was heard and A.M. was wounded.
- Huls told police he discharged after hearing noises and claimed self-defense and defense of property.
- Police found fourteen shell casings on Huls’ property.
- State charged two counts of criminal recklessness and one count of pointing a firearm at a person; jury found guilty on the recklessness counts and not guilty on the firearm count.
- Huls challenged on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct, improper jury instructions on self-defense and mistake of fact, and insufficiency of evidence to rebut self-defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct denial and mistrial фит | Huls argues prosecutorial misconduct warranted mistrial. | State contends waiver or not grave peril from comment. | No reversible error; isolated comment did not place Huls in grave peril. |
| Self-defense jury instructions were appropriate | Huls claims instructions on self-defense were correct and necessary. | Court properly refused; instructions misstate law. | Court did not abuse discretion; instructions were improper as they overemphasized defendant’s viewpoint. |
| Need for mistake-of-fact instruction | There was evidence supporting mistake of fact defense. | Evidence did not raise reasonable doubt about recklessness. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; no instruction required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dumas v. State, 803 N.E.2d 1113 (Ind. 2004) (waiver of prosecutorial misconduct claim requires admonishment or mistrial motion)
- Watkins v. State, 766 N.E.2d 18 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (isolated improper comment lacking probable persuasive impact)
- Redmon v. State, 734 N.E.2d 1088 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (prosecutor’s comment not likely to prejudice given overwhelming evidence)
- Littler v. State, 871 N.E.2d 276 (Ind. 2007) (self-defense includes subjective and objective components)
- Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799 (Ind. 2002) (burden to negate self-defense elements on claim)
- Nordstrom v. State, 627 N.E.2d 1380 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (recklessness requires disregard for risk; belief does not negate recklessness)
- Tharpe v. State, 955 N.E.2d 836 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (initial aggressor must withdraw and communicate intent to avoid self-defense claim)
- Potter v. State, 684 N.E.2d 1127 (Ind. 1997) (defense instruction required where evidence supports)
- Stoner v. State, 442 N.E.2d 983 (Ind. 1982) (evidence must create reasonable doubt on mental state)