Donald W. Myers, III. v. State of Indiana
2015 Ind. LEXIS 275
| Ind. | 2015Background
- Donald W. Myers III, diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, stopped meds and in April 2004 fired a shotgun at multiple vehicles (including a police cruiser); he was shot and hospitalized.
- Myers told his mother at the hospital he did not want to speak to police and (ambiguously) wanted an attorney to sue the police. No record shows Miranda warnings were given.
- After competency proceedings and institutionalization, Myers was tried in 2018 and the jury found him guilty but mentally ill on four counts of Class A attempted murder. He received consecutive 30-year terms (120 years aggregate).
- On appeal the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the jury clearly erred in rejecting insanity and that references to Myers’ post‑arrest silence/request for counsel violated due process. The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer.
- The Supreme Court reviewed (1) sufficiency of evidence rejecting insanity, (2) alleged due process violation from post‑arrest silence and request for counsel, and (3) sentence appropriateness.
Issues
| Issue | Myers’ Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was insufficient because experts unanimously opined Myers was insane at the time | Myers: unanimous expert opinion proves he was insane and NGRI should have been found | State: eyewitness/demeanor/circumstantial evidence permitted a contrary inference of sanity; jury verdict entitled to deference | Affirmed convictions — jury could reasonably infer Myers appreciated wrongfulness (mental illness alone insufficient for insanity defense) |
| Whether admission/argument about Myers’ post‑arrest silence/request for counsel violated due process under Doyle/Wainwright | Myers: post‑Miranda silence and request for counsel were used to prove sanity and thus violated due process | State: record lacks Miranda warnings and no custodial interrogation; statements were to mother and admissible on sanity issue | No due process violation — protections not triggered; statements admissible as relevant to sanity |
| Whether any constitutional error (if assumed) was harmless | Myers: any error affected verdict | State: error not shown; even if error existed it would be harmless beyond reasonable doubt | Court did not reach harmless‑error analysis because no constitutional violation found |
| Whether consecutive 30‑year sentences (120 years) were inappropriate | Myers: sentence excessive given his mental illness and character | State: multiple victims (including child and officer) support consecutive terms; within statutory range and trial court discretion | Sentence affirmed as not inappropriate and consecutive terms not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Louisiana, 447 U.S. 328 (1980) (trial’s basic purpose is determination of truth entrusted to jury)
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976) (use of post‑Miranda silence for impeachment violates due process)
- Wainwright v. Greenfield, 474 U.S. 284 (1986) (post‑Miranda silence may not be used to prove sanity)
- Galloway v. State, 938 N.E.2d 699 (Ind. 2010) (where experts unanimously find insanity, there must be other probative lay/demeanor evidence to permit a contrary inference)
- Thompson v. State, 804 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. 2004) (appellate deference to jury on insanity unless evidence is without conflict)
- Robinette v. State, 741 N.E.2d 1162 (Ind. 2001) (use of post‑Miranda silence to prove sanity is subject to harmless‑error analysis)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (App. R. 7(B) review and factors for sentence appropriateness)