Donald J. Burns v. State of Indiana, 2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 330

Victim Dorothy Hurd (74) disappeared June 13, 2011 after leaving home with her nephew Donald Burns; her skeletal remains were found Feb. 9, 2012 in a remote thicket near the Mississinewa River.
Forensic evidence showed multiple blunt-force fractures to Hurd’s skull and jaw consistent with perimortem trauma; animal scavenging had dispersed remains.
On the day of the disappearance Burns’s cell phone was used near the recovery site, and later that day Burns used Hurd’s credit card to buy jewelry and pawned her wedding ring; he also gave some items to his wife and asked her later to dispose of them.
Burns was charged with murder, forgery, theft, and receiving stolen property; a jury convicted him and found him an habitual offender; he received an aggregate 103-year sentence.
On appeal Burns argued (1) the trial court abused its discretion by admitting gruesome photographs of the scene and remains, and (2) insufficient evidence existed to prove intent to kill.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of photographs	Photographs were probative and necessary to illustrate scene and injuries	Photographs were gruesome, cumulative, and more prejudicial than probative	No abuse of discretion; photos were relevant, interpretive, and explained by witness testimony
Sufficiency of evidence of intent to kill	Circumstantial evidence (blunt-force trauma, location of remains, Burns’s actions after disappearance) supports an inference of intent	Lack of formal autopsy and undetermined exact cause/manner of death undermines proof of intent	Evidence was sufficient; jury could reasonably infer intent from injuries, circumstances, and Burns’s conduct

Wilson v. State, 765 N.E.2d 1265 (Ind. 2002) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings is abuse of discretion)
Pruitt v. State, 834 N.E.2d 90 (Ind. 2005) (photograph admission reviewed for abuse of discretion; Rule 103 preservation and impact on substantial rights)
Corbett v. State, 764 N.E.2d 622 (Ind. 2002) (autopsy/photograph admissibility when testimony explains postmortem changes)
Fentress v. State, 702 N.E.2d 721 (Ind. 1998) (photographs depicting injuries admissible when they aid jury understanding)
Spencer v. State, 703 N.E.2d 1053 (Ind. 1999) (gruesome photos admissible if strong probative value as interpretive aids)
Chapman v. State, 719 N.E.2d 1232 (Ind. 1999) (intent to kill may be inferred from use of deadly weapon)
Corbin v. State, 563 N.E.2d 86 (Ind. 1990) (intent may be inferred from nature of attack and surrounding circumstances)
Gibson v. State, 515 N.E.2d 492 (Ind. 1987) (duration/brutality and relative strength can indicate intent to kill)
Nunn v. State, 601 N.E.2d 334 (Ind. 1992) (repeated blows of magnitude can support inference of intent to kill)
Banks v. State, 567 N.E.2d 1126 (Ind. 1991) (standard for sufficiency review: consider evidence most favorable to verdict)