Kurt Stuhlmacher v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 37A03-1704-CR-833

In November 2014 Kurt Stuhlmacher (defendant) chased his wife, Kelly Wood, in his pickup while she fled in a Mustang; he rammed her car three times at high speed causing her car to hit a parked car and then a utility pole; officers later boxed him in and arrested him.
Wood had a long, troubled marriage with Stuhlmacher involving substance abuse, mental-health issues, suicidal ideation, and domestic conflict; Stuhlmacher had been barred from hunting on a friend’s land and was financially dependent on Wood.
The State charged Stuhlmacher with Level 1 attempted murder, Level 3 attempted aggravated battery, three counts of Level 6 criminal recklessness, two counts of Level 6 resisting law enforcement, and Class A misdemeanor OWI endangering; jury convicted on all but one resisting count; trial court imposed an aggregate 30-year sentence.
On appeal Stuhlmacher argued: (1) erroneous admission of evidence (deer‑camp and marital-history testimony); (2) erroneous attempted-murder jury instruction (use of the word “knowingly”); and (3) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to move for a mistrial based on alleged extrajudicial jury contact.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding evidence admission was proper, the instruction—though inartfully worded—did not mislead the jury, and the ineffective-assistance claim failed because defendant produced no reliable evidence of juror contact.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of deer‑camp evidence	State: testimony about being barred from hunting was relevant background, not bad‑acts evidence	Stuhlmacher: evidence was improper character/404(b) evidence	Affirmed — farmer’s prohibition and mental‑health history were not crimes/wrongs barred by Rule 404(b)
Admissibility of marital‑history/hostility evidence	State: hostility evidence is relevant to motive and state of mind	Stuhlmacher: prior acts and relationship history were inadmissible propensity evidence	Affirmed — hostile marital history was admissible to show motive/state of mind
Jury instruction for attempted murder	State: instruction correctly required specific intent to kill and a substantial step	Stuhlmacher: inclusion of “knowingly” created mens rea error	Affirmed — wording was inartful but conjunction with “intentionally” required specific intent and did not mislead jury (court urged omission of “knowingly” in future)
Ineffective assistance for failure to move for mistrial over alleged juror contact	State: no competent evidence extrajudicial contact occurred; counsel not ineffective	Stuhlmacher: trial counsel should have sought mistrial after alleged jury‑room intrusion	Affirmed — defendant’s post‑trial assertions were self‑serving and insufficient to show juror contact or prejudice; counsel not ineffective

Rosales v. State, 23 N.E.3d 8 (Ind. 2015) (attempt requires specific intent to kill plus substantial step)
Ramsey v. State, 723 N.E.2d 869 (Ind. 2000) (attempted‑murder instructions referencing only “knowing” mens rea are erroneous)
Hicks v. State, 690 N.E.2d 215 (Ind. 1997) (hostility towards victim is a paradigmatic motive)
Ross v. State, 676 N.E.2d 339 (Ind. 1996) (prior bad acts admissible to show relationship between defendant and victim)
Wahl v. State, 51 N.E.3d 113 (Ind. 2016) (defendant bears initial burden to show extrajudicial juror contact occurred and related to the case)
Bisard v. State, 26 N.E.3d 1060 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (mistrial standard: grave peril required)
Pavan v. State, 64 N.E.3d 231 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (ineffective‑assistance standard: deficient performance plus prejudice)
Johnson v. State, 6 N.E.3d 491 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (trial court’s evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)