Freddie Rhodes v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
20A03-1508-CR-1181
| Ind. Ct. App. | Aug 26, 2016Background
- Rhodes, Dalton, and Rodgers entered the Marsh residence at night wearing masks and armed to commit a robbery; an altercation in the basement left Rodgers shot and dead.
- The trio left with the Marsh family laptop; Dalton later admitted participation in the attempted robbery.
- Rhodes and Dalton were charged with felony murder (Rodgers’s death occurring during the robbery).
- Trial court denied Rhodes’s motions to sever, denied his motions to compel police reports, required defendants to share peremptory challenges, and conducted individualized voir dire for one juror.
- A jury convicted Rhodes of felony murder; Rhodes appealed raising severance, discovery, peremptory challenges, voir dire, and sufficiency challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Severance of trials | State: joinder proper; same evidence and accomplice liability apply | Rhodes: requested separate trial because co-defendant blamed Rhodes in closing | Denied; no mutually antagonistic defenses and severance unnecessary to ensure fair trial |
| Discovery — police reports | State: police reports were work product and summaries; verbatim statements (if any) were provided | Rhodes: trial court erred by refusing to compel production of police reports under local rule | Denied; no showing reports contained substantially verbatim statements and in-camera review not sought |
| Sharing peremptory challenges | State: joint defendants must join peremptory challenges under statute and jury rule | Rhodes: objected to sharing challenges | Denied; statutory and rule authority permit sharing and no actual prejudice shown |
| Voir dire — individualized questioning | State: court acted within discretion to prevent contamination of panel | Rhodes: prejudiced by having one juror questioned separately while others were excused | Denied; individualized voir dire appropriate given unusual circumstances and no demonstrated prejudice |
| Sufficiency of evidence for felony murder | State: evidence showed armed robbery and Rhodes’s participation; foreseeability and accomplice liability support felony murder | Rhodes: no proof he (or others) committed robbery or that death was foreseeable; disputes who fired fatal shots | Affirmed; substantial evidence that Rhodes participated in armed robbery and his conduct was a mediate/immediate cause of Rodgers’s death |
Key Cases Cited
- Lee v. State, 684 N.E.2d 1143 (Ind. 1997) (joinder and severance standards)
- Robinson v. State, 693 N.E.2d 548 (Ind. 1998) (police reports as prosecutor work product; discoverability of verbatim statements)
- Goudy v. State, 689 N.E.2d 686 (Ind. 1997) (trial court discretion on discovery)
- Palmer v. State, 704 N.E.2d 124 (Ind. 1999) (felony-murder mediate contribution principle)
- Forney v. State, 742 N.E.2d 934 (Ind. 2001) (felony murder applies when felon contributes to death of any person including co-perpetrator)
- Peck v. State, 563 N.E.2d 554 (Ind. 1990) (sharing peremptory challenges not reversible absent actual prejudice)
- Logan v. State, 729 N.E.2d 125 (Ind. 2000) (trial court broad discretion in voir dire; reversal requires manifest abuse and prejudice)
- Hadley v. State, 496 N.E.2d 67 (Ind. 1986) (individualized voir dire may be required in highly unusual or potentially damaging circumstances)
- Cooper v. State, 854 N.E.2d 831 (Ind. 2006) (appellate waiver for inadequate argument)
- Layman v. State, 42 N.E.3d 972 (Ind. 2015) (distinguishable felony-murder reversal where defendants were unarmed and conduct not dangerous)