5 N.E.3d 814
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- Perkins, involved in drug trade disputes with Lamar, is killed after meeting Lamar and associates to buy drugs.
- Lamar, Garner, Hunt, and Jordan meet Perkins in an apartment parking lot; multiple firearms are carried.
- During the confrontation, Perkins is shot; Parahams, Perkins’s girlfriend, is shot at in her vehicle; she escapes after playing dead.
- Lamar later tells associates that someone was in Parahams’s car and that he shot at the car; Lamar is arrested in Chicago with a Taurus .45.
- Parahams’s vehicle suffers extensive damage and contains bullets fired by the Taurus .45; forensic linking supports the firearm.
- Lamar is convicted of Class A felony attempted murder of Parahams and sentenced to 40 years; Hunt and Garner testified against him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of evidence of Perkins’s murder | State contends evidence is intrinsic and admissible for context and motive. | Lamar argues admission was fundamental error under Rule 404(b). | No fundamental error; evidence intrinsic and properly limited. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence to sustain attempted murder | State sufficient circumstantial and testimonial evidence shows intent to kill. | Lamar argues testimony is incredible and evidence weak. | Evidence sufficient; reasonable jurors could find specific intent and substantial step. |
| Appropriateness of the 40-year sentence | State requests no reduction, considering nature and offender's history. | Lamar seeks partial suspension due to youth and parental responsibilities. | Sentence not inappropriate;ительность reflects nature and offender’s history. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spencer v. State, 703 N.E.2d 1053 (Ind. 1999) (standard for Rule 404(b) admissibility balancing)
- Lee v. State, 689 N.E.2d 435 (Ind. 1997) (intrinsic evidence doctrine)
- Wages v. State, 863 N.E.2d 408 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (timing/scope of intrinsic evidence)
- Allen v. State, 925 N.E.2d 469 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (motive relevance for crimes)
- Osborne v. State, 754 N.E.2d 916 (Ind. 2001) (intent to kill inferred from use of deadly weapon)
- Henley v. State, 881 N.E.2d 639 (Ind. 2008) (specific-intent element and inferential proof)
- Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. 2010) (due process and fundamental error framework)
- Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (deference in Rule 7(B) review of sentences)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (sentencing guidance under Rule 7(B))
- Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023 (Ind. 2010) (aggregating penal consequences in review)
- Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003 (Ind. 2009) (sufficiency and credibility standards)
- Love v. State, 761 N.E.2d 806 (Ind. 2002) (incredible dubiosity doctrine rarity and scope)
- Lamar-specific notes, N/A () (see opinion for additional Indiana authorities cited)