Michael T. Shoun v. State of Indiana
2017 Ind. LEXIS 62
| Ind. | 2017Background
- In Nov. 2013 Michael Shoun (approx. 25–26) murdered his 17‑year‑old girlfriend, Tiana Alter, inflicting massive, multiple stab wounds and mutilations while she was alive; drug use and paranoia were present.
- Alter’s body was found rolled in carpet with a large abdominal wound and internal organ removal; knives with her DNA were found at the scene.
- Shoun was a fugitive from a work‑release placement tied to a prior habitual‑traffic‑offender conviction; the State charged murder and sought life without parole (LWOP), alleging he was in DOC custody at the time and that he mutilated the victim while alive.
- Defense counsel initially filed a petition under Indiana’s Disability Chapter asserting Shoun had an intellectual disability, but after investigation withdrew the petition, concluding the statutory showing (manifestation before age 22 and required documentation) could not be met.
- A jury convicted Shoun of murder, found aggravators outweighed mitigators, recommended LWOP, and the trial court entered LWOP; Shoun appeals only his LWOP sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Shoun) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court committed fundamental error by failing to sua sponte find Shoun has an intellectual disability, which would bar LWOP | The record (two court‑ordered evaluations diagnosing mild intellectual disability, low IQ/adaptive scores, drug‑use/behavioral evidence) shows clear and convincing proof; the court should have sua sponte made the Disability Chapter finding despite withdrawal | The claim was waived by withdrawal; counsel investigated and concluded the statutory threshold (manifestation before 22 and documented adaptive deficits) could not be proved; no hearing occurred so record is incomplete | No fundamental error. Court: record incomplete, counsel withdrew after investigation, and the narrow fundamental‑error standard is not met |
| Whether LWOP is unconstitutionally disproportionate under Art. I, §16 as applied to Shoun | LWOP is disproportionate given Shoun’s alleged intellectual disability and compromised psychological state | The offense is exceptionally severe; LWOP is supported both by the DOC‑custody aggravator (habitual‑offender‑type review) and by the mutilation aggravator; proportionality tests favor LWOP | Not disproportionate. Given extreme brutality and prior status, LWOP is proportioned to the offense |
| Whether the sentence is inappropriate under Indiana App. R. 7(B) considering nature of offense and Shoun’s character | Shoun’s character (low IQ, psychological compromise, drug intoxication, abusive childhood) reduces culpability such that LWOP is inappropriate | The alleged disability was not proven; Shoun voluntarily used synthetic marijuana; his long criminal history and disregard for the law aggravate culpability | Not inappropriate. The nature of the crime and Shoun’s character (criminal history, choice to use drugs) do not justify revising LWOP |
Key Cases Cited
- Jewell v. State, 887 N.E.2d 939 (Ind. 2008) (explains narrow fundamental‑error exception on direct appeal)
- Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274 (Ind. 2014) (sets proportionality standards under Art. I, §16 and distinguishes habitual‑enhancement review)
- Best v. State, 566 N.E.2d 1027 (Ind. 1991) (framework for assessing nature and gravity of offenses for enhancements)
- Smallwood v. State, 773 N.E.2d 259 (Ind. 2002) (interprets Disability Chapter procedures as applicable where State seeks LWOP)