Jory D. Peters v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
45A03-1703-PC-393
| Ind. Ct. App. | Sep 1, 2017Background
- In 2011 Juan Nieves was fatally shot after his truck crashed; witnesses and surveillance linked a green Chrysler 300 driven by Jory Peters to the scene.
- Peters gave a two-hour videotaped police interview in February 2012: initially denied being at the scene, then admitted presence but said he "heard shots" and left; never claimed he shot Nieves or acted in self-defense.
- At trial the videotaped statement was played; defense counsel elicited testimony suggesting Nieves might have had a gun and requested a self-defense instruction, which the trial court denied.
- A jury convicted Peters of murder; this court affirmed on direct appeal.
- In post-conviction proceedings Peters presented newly discovered testimony from inmate-witness Christopher Godines, who claimed he saw Crystal Mendez remove a gun from Nieves’ truck after the crash.
- The post-conviction court found Godines’s testimony would not likely produce a different result because it did not show Nieves threatened Peters or that Peters acted in self-defense; post-conviction relief was denied and affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Peters) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether newly discovered evidence (Godines) warrants a new trial | Godines’s testimony that Mendez removed a gun from Nieves supports a self-defense theory and would likely create reasonable doubt | Evidence is insufficient: Godines does not show Nieves ever pointed or fired a gun at Peters nor that Peters acted in self-defense; Peters’s own statement contradicts a self-defense claim | Denied: Godines’s testimony would not probably produce a different result at retrial |
Key Cases Cited
- Stevens v. State, 770 N.E.2d 739 (Ind. 2002) (post-conviction review standard and scope)
- Timberlake v. State, 753 N.E.2d 591 (Ind. 2001) (limits on collateral review and post-conviction remedies)
- Sanders v. State, 765 N.E.2d 591 (Ind. 2002) (post-conviction relief available for ineffective assistance or issues unavailable at trial/direct appeal)
- Smith v. State, 770 N.E.2d 290 (Ind. 2002) (standard for overturning post-conviction factual findings)
- Taylor v. State, 840 N.E.2d 324 (Ind. 2006) (nine-factor test for newly discovered evidence)
- Fox v. State, 568 N.E.2d 1006 (Ind. 1991) (omitted evidence must create reasonable doubt to warrant new trial)
- Coleman v. State, 946 N.E.2d 1160 (Ind. 2011) (elements required to claim self-defense)