Gibbs v. State
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1213
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Gibbs was charged in May 2009 with three counts of arson as Class B felonies for fires set in a multi-family residence and an adjacent unit.
- During May 2009–August 2009, Gibbs underwent multiple competency evaluations; one psychiatrist found him incompetent, another psychologist deemed him competent.
- The court declared Gibbs incompetent and ordered competency restoration; Gibbs was later found to regain competency by a 2010 FSSA report, with the court returning him for trial.
- Before trial, the State sought to amend the Information to clarify the multi-family residence and reduce Count III from Class B to Class D based on lower losses; amendments were discussed with Gibbs’ counsel and read to the jury.
- After voir dire, the State amended again to strike Tallie and Anthony’s names from Counts I–II; Gibbs objected, but the court granted the amendment.
- Gibbs was convicted on all counts; the trial court later vacated Counts II and III and sentenced Gibbs on Count I; Gibbs appealed challenging both competency and amendment issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competency determination adequacy | Gibbs contends the court failed to follow statutory procedures before competency ruling. | Gibbs argues the court properly evaluated competency based on evidence and pre-trial reports. | No reversible error; competency finding upheld, court reasonably relied on FSSA report and conduct. |
| Timing and propriety of substantive amendments after voir dire | Gibbs contends amendments post-voir dire altered substantive charges prejudicing defense. | Gibbs argues amendments were necessary to reflect the facts and were properly permissible. | Erroneous; substantive amendments after voir dire were improper; vacate conviction and remand for new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Faris v. State, 901 N.E.2d 1123 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (incompetent defendant conviction violates due process and statute)
- Mast v. State, 914 N.E.2d 851 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (competency determined by ability to understand proceedings and assist defense)
- Cotton v. State, 753 N.E.2d 589 (Ind.2001) (competency can be determined from pre-trial reports and conduct at trial)
- Fields v. State, 888 N.E.2d 304 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (distinguishes form vs. substance amendments; de novo review of substance)
- Jones v. State, 863 N.E.2d 333 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (form vs. substance amendment analysis)
- Fajardo v. State, 859 N.E.2d 1201 (Ind.2007) (timeliness of substantive amendments before omnibus date governs validity)
- Fuller v. State, 875 N.E.2d 326 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (implications of Fajardo on continuance waiver for untimely amendments)
- Wilson v. State, 931 N.E.2d 914 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (post-amendment continuance waiver framework for amended charges)
- Wright v. State, 690 N.E.2d 1098 (Ind.1997) (continuance requirement for untimely amendments prior to amended trial)