235 N.E.3d 875
Ind. Ct. App.2024Background
- Heidi Carter was convicted by a jury of murder, rape, and criminal confinement after a violent incident involving her fiancé, Carey Hammond, A.S., and Tim Ivy.
- Carter and Hammond lured A.S. and Ivy to Carter's home for sexual activity, during which Hammond killed Ivy and sexually assaulted A.S., with Carter's active involvement.
- Following the incident, Carter participated in covering up the crime, including helping to conceal Ivy's body and failing to report the incident to the authorities.
- After an initial trial resulted in a hung jury and mistrial on most charges (except for a handgun charge), the State refiled the murder and felony murder charges, leading to Carter’s second trial and ultimate conviction.
- Carter appealed, arguing prosecutorial vindictiveness in refiling the murder charge and insufficient evidence for her murder conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Carter's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the refiling of murder charge was vindictive | Refiling after hung jury was vindictive prosecution | No vindictiveness where mistrial is due to hung jury | No error; vindictiveness doctrine did not apply |
| Sufficiency of evidence for murder conviction | Insufficient evidence to support murder as accomplice | Sufficient evidence of accomplice liability | Evidence sufficient; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Owens v. State, 822 N.E.2d 1075 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (prosecutorial vindictiveness presumption when new charges arise after a defendant's successful mistrial motion)
- Sisson v. State, 985 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (no vindictiveness where mistrial is due to jury deadlock, not defendant’s exercise of a right)
- Cherry v. State, 414 N.E.2d 301 (Ind. 1981) (prosecutorial vindictiveness standards following exercise of statutory or constitutional rights)
- Jackson v. State, 222 N.E.3d 321 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (accomplice liability does not require defendant to commit every element of the crime)