Larry Crume v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
46A04-1510-CR-1805
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 15, 2016Background
- On August 15, 2014, Larry Crume and Johnny McSwain confronted Daniel Mallet and Barry Williams; Crume shot at Mallet and fatally shot the unconscious Williams.
- After the murder, McSwain, Crume, and Deanbra Martin discussed and planned to kill Mallet to prevent him from talking to police; McSwain supplied a gun to Martin and arranged an alibi by going to Walmart with Crume.
- Martin became a confidential informant, testified about discussions implicating both McSwain and Crume, and helped establish the Walmart alibi plan.
- Crume and McSwain were tried jointly on murder, attempted murder, and conspiracy to commit murder; Crume objected to consolidation and later sought severance of the conspiracy count but did not renew the motion after obtaining new counsel.
- A jury convicted Crume on all counts; the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate 120 years (consecutive sentences: 55, 35, and 30 years).
- On appeal Crume challenged consolidation, failure to sever the conspiracy count, sufficiency of conspiracy evidence, and the appropriateness of his aggregate sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by consolidating Crume's trial with McSwain's | Consolidation proper because defendants were charged with same offenses, were accomplices, evidence applied to both; jury instructed to treat each defendant separately | Consolidation prejudiced Crume because evidence against McSwain differed, risk of juror reliance on McSwain's incriminating statements (Bruton) and confusion from informant's pronoun use | No abuse of discretion; evidence against Crume (eyewitness and Martin) and jury instructions rendered consolidation proper; any Bruton-type testimony was cumulative and not prejudicial |
| Whether the conspiracy count should have been severed from murder and attempted murder counts | Joinder proper because offenses arose from connected acts (motive to silence Mallet); not overly complex; evidence distinct enough for jury to separate | The conspiracy (later in time) was separate and presentation risked prejudice to murder counts | No error; offenses were connected as part of a single scheme, and severance was not required to ensure a fair determination |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to convict Crume of conspiracy to commit murder | State: circumstantial and direct evidence (Crume nodded agreement, admissions, Walmart alibi, provision of gun by co-conspirator, overt acts) supported inference of agreement and overt acts | Crume: only nodding and presence at Walmart insufficient; no direct proof of agreement or overt act by Crume | Sufficiency affirmed: agreement can be inferred from circumstantial evidence and overt acts (gun supplied by McSwain; Walmart alibi) satisfied statutory requirement |
| Whether the 120-year aggregate sentence is inappropriate under App. R. 7(B) | State: sentence justified by callous murder of an unconscious victim, attempt on Mallet and conspiracy, and Crume's criminal history and lack of rehabilitation | Crume: aggregate 120 years is excessive relative to offense and character (argues inappropriateness) | Sentence upheld: appellate court gave due deference, focused on aggregate culpability; Crume's violent conduct and criminal history make the sentence not inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Lee v. State, 684 N.E.2d 1143 (Ind. 1997) (standards for joinder/severance and review of consolidating defendants)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (co-defendant statements at joint trial may violate Confrontation Clause)
- Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987) (Bruton limited to statements that facially incriminate co-defendant)
- Fayson v. State, 726 N.E.2d 292 (Ind. 2000) (harmless error applies to Bruton-type claims)
- Suggs v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1190 (Ind. 2016) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Erkins v. State, 13 N.E.3d 400 (Ind. 2014) (agreement for conspiracy may be inferred from circumstantial evidence and overt acts)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (appellate review under App. R. 7(B) focuses on aggregate sentence)
- Trainor v. State, 950 N.E.2d 352 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (appellate standard and deference for sentence revision under Rule 7(B))