Mendenhall v. State
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 73
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Mendenhall convicted of attempted murder, robbery resulting in serious bodily injury, aggravated battery, criminal confinement, and resisting law enforcement; affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- Victim was Edward DeLaney; assault occurred Oct 2009 in Carmel; gunpoint car confrontation with multiple altercations and injuries including facial fractures and chest injuries.
- Court-appointed medical witnesses evaluated insanity defense; defendant raised Doyle issue about post-arrest silence; mistrial denied; silence admonished but no Doyle violation.
- During trial, rebuttal witnesses followed court experts; order of witnesses later deemed waived on preservation grounds; specific objections raised but not timely.
- Judgment mainly upheld; but to cure double jeopardy, the robbery conviction is reduced to Class C felony on remand; other counts affirmed.
- Sentence totaled 40 years; appellate review addressed Doyle, rebuttal, sufficiency, and double jeopardy issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Doyle violation and mistrial denial | State argues no Doyle violation; mistrial not warranted | Mendenhall asserts Doyle violation due to silence invocations | No Doyle violation; mistrial not warranted |
| Order of witnesses for insanity evidence | State contends no preserved error; waiver | Mendenhall argues improper order affected defense | Waived; no reversible error on order of witnesses |
| Admissibility of DeLaney's rebuttal testimony | State claims rebuttal proper and not unduly prejudicial | Mendenhall argues unfair prejudice from rebuttal | No fundamental error; rebuttal admissible under Rule 403 not shown to deny fair trial |
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted murder, robbery, and aggravated battery | State presents sufficient evidence to sustain convictions | Mendenhall challenges elements, especially intent and injury | Sufficient evidence supports attempted murder and aggravated battery; robbery supported by serious bodily injury evidence, subject to double jeopardy remand on robbery |
| Double jeopardy concerning overlapping convictions | State argues multiple offenses valid; no double jeopardy in some counts | Mendenhall asserts same-acts premise invalid | No DJ for attempted murder and criminal confinement; double jeopardy found for robbery and aggravated battery; robbery reduced to Class C on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (U.S. 1976) (premises exclusion of post-arrest silence as impeachment use)
- Kubsch v. State, 784 N.E.2d 905 (Ind. 2003) (silence tied to sanity issues; Doyle applicability cited)
- Splunge v. Parke, 160 F.3d 369 (7th Cir. 1998) (silence at arrest not prejudicial when not used improperly)
- Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756 (U.S. 1987) (no Doyle violation where silence admonished and no further comment)
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (evidence sufficiency standard; no requirement to overcome every hypothesis of innocence)
- Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999) (double jeopardy analysis for same-offense doctrine)
- Miller v. State, 790 N.E.2d 437 (Ind. 2003) (repeated use of weapon across offenses not same offense)
- Seide v. State, 784 N.E.2d 974 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (confinement and other offenses may be separate offenses when timing distinguishes)