Michael A. Lane v. State of Indiana, 2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 528

Lane was convicted in the Vanderburgh Circuit Court of murder, conspiracy to deal a Schedule II controlled substance, and two counts of criminal recklessness; he appeals the verdicts and sentences.
On Jan. 5, 2010, Derrington arranged a drug deal in Evansville involving Hooper, Derrington, Clark, and Lane (as “Little Mike”) in a drug transaction intended to deliver oxycodone; the deal occurred in a Sunburst Apartments parking lot.
Hooper and Derrington traveled with Hurst; Lane boarded the vehicle, then shot Derrington and Hooper as they sat unarmed in the car; Hurst returned fire, Lane shot Hurst and Derrington as they attempted to flee, and Lane fled the scene.
Police identified Lane by his phone number and witness identifications; Derrington identified Lane at the scene and later in hospital; thousands of dollars and a Crown Royal bag were found at the scene.
At trial, Lane challenged the court’s decision not to give a lesser-included-offense instruction on reckless homicide and challenged the admission of hearsay evidence tied to a phone number after the defense opened the door; the court ultimately affirmed the convictions, finding the Confrontation Clause issue harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
The shooting occurred during a botched drug transaction; the weapon used was recovered from the car and traced to the scene through ballistics, with multiple victims identified as Lane’s targets or participants.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Reckless homicide instruction as lesser-included offense	Lane argues a serious evidentiary dispute exists about his state of mind.	Lane contends he acted recklessly rather than knowingly in killing Hooper.	No abuse of discretion; no serious evidentiary dispute; reckless homicide not warranted.
Admission of hearsay after opening the door to evidence	State argues defense opened the door by suggesting nothing tied Lane to the crime.	Lane asserts the Davis phone-number testimony violated Confrontation Clause.	Trial court erred in ruling door opened, but error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Young v. State, 699 N.E.2d 252 (Ind. 1998) (inclusion of reckless homicide as lesser offense requires serious evidentiary dispute)
Turner v. State, 751 N.E.2d 726 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (fact-specific intent disputes determine if serious evidentiary dispute exists)
Kubsch v. State, 784 N.E.2d 905 (Ind. 2003) (open-the-door doctrine; constitutional concerns in admitting otherwise excluded evidence)
King v. State, 985 N.E.2d 755 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (test for whether statements are testimonial under Confrontation Clause)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1990) (standard for harmless error review of Confrontation Clause violations)