Mark Leonard v. State of Indiana
86 N.E.3d 406
Ind. Ct. App.2017Background
- In November 2012 an explosion killed two people; Mark Leonard (resident of the house) was charged in the Explosion Case (arson, murder, insurance fraud).
- While jailed on those charges, Leonard communicated via other inmates; an informant (Robert Smith, “Smitty”) delivered to police an envelope containing a letter and map threatening Mark Duckworth and naming Leonard.
- ATF arranged an undercover agent (“Jay”) to pose as a hitman; recorded jail calls from Leonard to “Jay” (using Smith’s jail PIN) in which Leonard discussed the map, detailed how to kill Duckworth, staged it as a suicide, and promised payment.
- The State charged Leonard with Class A felony conspiracy to commit murder (murder-for-hire of Duckworth).
- At trial the court admitted the recorded jail calls and the letter/map (Exhibit 7) over Leonard’s objections; jury convicted Leonard and he received a 50-year sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admission of jail phone calls violated Article 1, §13 right to counsel (fundamental error) | State: right to counsel had not attached for the murder-for-hire offense; recordings were admissible | Leonard: his Article 1, §13 right to counsel attached because he was represented on related Explosion Case and the investigation referenced that case | No fundamental error; calls were not barred by Article 1, §13 because the murder-for-hire offense was not inextricably intertwined with the Explosion Case |
| Whether admission of letter/map (Exhibit 7) was improper (authentication, hearsay, confrontation) | State: exhibit corroborated calls and was admissible/relevant | Leonard: challenged authentication, hearsay exceptions, and confrontation clause violation | Any error in admitting Exhibit 7 was harmless because its contents were cumulative of the properly admitted jail calls |
Key Cases Cited
- Jewell v. State, 957 N.E.2d 625 (Ind. 2011) (framework for when Article 1, §13 right to counsel may extend to related offenses and factors for the “inextricably intertwined” exception)
- Texas v. Cobb, 532 U.S. 162 (2001) (Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense-specific)
- Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977) (exceptions to offense-specific Sixth Amendment rule where statements are inextricably intertwined)
- Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159 (1985) (circumvention of Sixth Amendment protections doctrine)
- Hall v. State, 870 N.E.2d 449 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (discusses treating Article 1, §13 as offense-specific)
- Leonard v. State, 73 N.E.3d 155 (Ind. 2017) (Indiana Supreme Court decision addressing Sixth Amendment analysis of the same jail-call evidence)