Jason Tibbs v. State of Indiana
59 N.E.3d 1005
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Victim Rayna Rison (16) disappeared March 26, 1993; her body was found April 27, 1993; cause of death was strangulation.
- Jason Tibbs was charged and, at a 2014 trial, convicted of murder based primarily on eyewitness testimony from Eric Freeman, who testified he saw Tibbs choke Rison and helped dispose of her body; Rickey Hammons later supplied information leading to Freeman.
- Decades after the murder, Rickey (a prisoner) told detectives in 2008 about seeing Rison in a car trunk in his parents’ pole barn; Rickey later testified at Tibbs’s trial; Rickey also pursued post-conviction relief/clemency and later filed sentence-modification petitions.
- Tibbs sought to introduce evidence pointing to a third-party suspect (Ray McCarty), and sought to admit a 2013 transcript of Freeman’s interview to impeach investigation/witness credibility; the trial court excluded that evidence.
- After conviction Tibbs obtained leave to file a Trial Rule 60(B) motion, arguing Brady/newly discovered evidence because the State allegedly promised or offered Rickey leniency in exchange for his testimony; evidentiary hearings were held and the trial court denied relief.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: it found (1) exclusion of the proffered third-party evidence was within the trial court’s discretion because it lacked sufficient connection or probative value; (2) exclusion of the Freeman transcript did not amount to fundamental error or prejudice; and (3) the 60(B)/Brady/newly discovered-evidence claims failed because no agreement or material undisclosed benefit to Rickey was proven.
Issues
| Issue | Tibbs’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of third‑party perpetrator evidence (McCarty) | Excluded items (McCarty’s indictment, Rison’s 1989 statement that McCarty threatened to kill her, requests to clean his car, inconsistent alibis) tended to show McCarty’s guilt and were critical to complete defense | Evidence lacked a direct, material connection to the murder and was speculative, cumulative, or impeachment only | Court: Affirmed exclusion — evidence not sufficiently probative of third‑party guilt; no abuse of discretion |
| Admission of Freeman’s 2013 interview transcript for impeachment of investigation/witness | Transcript shows detectives leading Freeman and suggests Freeman’s testimony derived from investigators, undermining credibility of eyewitness and investigation | Defense failed to offer the transcript at the proper time; discrepancies were explored on cross‑examination; exclusion not fundamentally unfair | Court: No fundamental error or prejudice; issues were waived or adequately covered by cross‑examination |
| Trial Rule 60(B) — newly discovered evidence / Brady claim re: Rickey Hammons | Rickey received or was offered a sentence reduction (time cut) in exchange for testimony; suppression of that benefit was Brady violation and newly discovered evidence entitling to new trial | No formal or informal promise/offer was made by prosecutors; discussions were vague and no material undisclosed benefit existed; Rickey did not receive a deal | Court: Findings support denial of 60(B); no Brady violation or material newly discovered evidence — no reasonable probability of a different result |
Key Cases Cited
- Joyner v. State, 678 N.E.2d 386 (Ind. 1997) (third‑party evidence admissible when it connects the third party to the crime and is sufficiently probative)
- Lashbrook v. State, 762 N.E.2d 756 (Ind. 2002) (third‑party speculation without a connection to the crime is inadmissible)
- Pelley v. State, 901 N.E.2d 494 (Ind. 2009) (trial court may exclude speculative third‑party motive evidence under Rule 403)
- Allen v. State, 813 N.E.2d 349 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (exclusion of uniquely exculpatory third‑party evidence can violate defendant’s right to present a defense)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose favorable material evidence to the defense)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (scope of Confrontation Clause and harmless‑error factors for denying impeachment of witness)
- Standifer v. State, 718 N.E.2d 1107 (Ind. 1999) (Confrontation Clause/impeachment errors reviewed for harmlessness using factors like importance and corroboration)
- Kubsch v. State, 934 N.E.2d 1138 (Ind. 2010) (standard for newly discovered evidence entitlement to new trial)