Background

• Roberson was convicted of murder after a trial held April 2–4, 2007, following alleged self-defense and voluntary manslaughter considerations.
• Evidence showed Young provoked Roberson with verbal and physical confrontations, and Roberson fired after Young punched him, resulting in Young's death.
• The trial court gave murder, and voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense, instructions, but defense did not request manslaughter instructions and did not object to them.
• Roberson pursued PCR alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel for failing to object to and properly challenge the jury instructions on voluntary manslaughter and sudden-heat burden.
• The post-conviction court denied PCR; Roberson appeals challenging trial counsel’s performance and prejudice in jury instructions.
• Appellate posture: review of denial of post-conviction relief; standard requires both deficient performance and prejudice to prove ineffective assistance.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Boesch v. State, 778 N.E.2d 1276 (Ind. 2002) (sudden heat not an element; erroneous to place burden on State to prove it)
• Eichelberger v. State, 852 N.E.2d 631 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (ineffective assistance for faulty voluntary manslaughter instruction under wrong burden)
• Sanders v. State, 764 N.E.2d 705 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (habeas/ineffective assistance due to improper burden on sudden heat)
• Walters v. State, - (-) (not cited in text)
• Watts v. State, 885 N.E.2d 1228 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (burden regarding sudden heat; guidance on instruction)
• Collins v. State, 966 N.E.2d 96 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (States may insist on proper sudden-heat instructions when evidence exists)
• Dearman v. State, 743 N.E.2d 757 (Ind. 2001) (burden and explanation regarding sudden heat)
• Roark v. State, 573 N.E.2d 881 (Ind. 1991) (definition of sudden heat and its evidentiary impact)
• Massey v. State, 955 N.E.2d 247 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (evidence-based voluntary manslaughter instruction considerations)