Landon T. Harbert and Malcolm M. Smith v. State of Indiana
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 29
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On October 23, 2012, two men armed with a handgun robbed a West Lafayette check‑cashing store, forced victims into a back room, and fled in a gray Dodge Durango that witnesses later saw speeding away. Approximately $1,500 was taken.
- Police recovered discarded clothing near the scene: sweatpants containing Smith’s wallet and ID and a hair with Smith’s DNA; a gray South Pole sweatshirt identified as belonging to Harbert; and high‑top sneakers matching witness description.
- The Durango belonged to Harbert’s wife, was later recovered burned near Smith’s residence, and phone records showed coordinated movement and calls between Harbert, Smith, and third parties on the robbery day consistent with the State’s theory.
- First trial ended in mistrial after officer testimony referenced a prior arrest; second trial ended in mistrial (hung jury); third trial (Aug. 2014) produced guilty verdicts. Harbert sentenced to 20 years for one count of Class B robbery; Smith received two concurrent 20‑year terms plus a 10‑year habitual‑offender enhancement (aggregate 30 years).
- Defendants appealed raising double jeopardy (retrial after mistrial), sufficiency of evidence, evidentiary error from admission of Smith’s statement, sentencing appropriateness (Harbert), and procedural claims concerning presence at pretrial hearings, denial of continuance, and denial of a new‑trial motion based on purportedly newly discovered media reports (Smith).
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether double jeopardy barred retrial after a mistrial caused by officer testimony | Prosecutor did not intend to cause mistrial; officer’s testimony was inadvertent and part of inquiry into vehicle records | Harbert/Smith: prosecutor (or state conduct) brought about mistrial so retrial is barred | Retrial not barred; no evidence prosecutor intended to provoke mistrial (Willoughby controlling) |
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove identity and robbery | Circumstantial evidence (clothing with Smith’s ID/DNA, sweatshirt tied to Harbert, burned Durango, phone records, deleted texts, witness descriptions) proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt | Defendants: identification not proven; alibi (Smith) and challenges to vehicle ownership (Harbert) | Evidence sufficient; jury could reasonably infer defendants committed the robbery |
| Admissibility of Smith’s pretrial statement implicating others (confrontation risk for Harbert) | Statement did not facially inculpate Harbert; limited instruction requested and given | Harbert: admission violated Confrontation Clause and was fundamental error | No fundamental error; statement did not facially implicate Harbert and counsel requested limiting instruction |
| Appropriateness of Harbert’s 20‑year sentence | Sentence within statutory range and supported by offense and extensive criminal history | Harbert: sentence excessive given offense and character | Sentence not inappropriate given offense conduct and Harbert’s serious criminal history |
Key Cases Cited
- Willoughby v. State, 660 N.E.2d 570 (Ind. 1996) (retrial not barred where prosecutor did not intend to cause mistrial from inadvertent testimony)
- Butler v. State, 724 N.E.2d 600 (Ind. 2000) (double jeopardy retrial rules explained; prosecutor‑caused mistrial bars retrial only with intent)
- Wilson v. State, 697 N.E.2d 466 (Ind. 1998) (retrial barred when prosecutor intended to provoke mistrial)
- Fayson v. State, 726 N.E.2d 292 (Ind. 2000) (confession by one defendant that "facially incriminates" co‑defendant implicates Confrontation Clause concerns)
- Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730 (U.S. 1987) (defendant’s right to be present applies to stages critical to outcome if presence contributes to fairness)
- Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003 (Ind. 2009) (standard for sufficiency review; circumstantial evidence may sustain conviction)