960 N.E.2d 854
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- Murrell was convicted of two counts of attempted trafficking with an inmate: Class C felony for cellular phones and Class A misdemeanor for tobacco.
- The trial was bench; Murrell conceded bringing contraband to the prison to give to inmate Willie Davis and asserted a duress defense.
- Murrell contends unknown callers threatened harm unless she delivered contraband; she later reported to authorities after entering the prison.
- Sentences imposed: three years for the Class C felony and one year for the Class A misdemeanor, with most suspended to probation.
- On appeal, Murrell challenges the duress defense, the proportionality of the Class C sentence, and the sentencing order (concurrent vs consecutive).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duress defense viability | Murrell asserted evidence supports duress, requiring reversal if State failed to rebut. | State contends the threat was not clear and imminent and there was no conclusive compulsion. | Duress not proven; compulsion not clear and imminent; evidence reweighing not allowed. |
| Proportional penalty for Class C felonyd | Murrell argues Class C for cellular telephones is disproportionate to offense and similar to weapons/substances. | State relies on Foreman and rationale that nontraditional offenses can justify higher penalties. | Not disproportionate; cellular contraband undermines prison discipline and deterrence justifies severity. |
| Proportionality relative to inmates possessing phones | Punishing contraband bringer more harshly than an inmate possessing a phone is unconstitutional. | Legislature could target contraband entrants as easier deterrence; disparity acceptable. | Not meritless; punishment not shocks public sentiment; permissible deterrence rationale. |
| Sentence framing: concurrent vs consecutive | Oral statement indicated concurrent sentences; written order erroneously stated consecutive. | State agrees remand for clarification; no firm stance on concurrency. | Remanded to correct written order to reflect concurrent sentences. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gallagher v. State, 925 N.E.2d 350 (Ind.2010) (sufficiency standard for rebutting a defense)
- Joslyn v. State, 942 N.E.2d 809 (Ind.2011) (consider evidence supporting judgment)
- Love v. State, 393 N.E.2d 178 (Ind.1979) (clear and conclusive compulsion required for duress)
- Hensley v. State, 583 N.E.2d 758 (Ind.Ct.App.1991) (reweighing evidence not allowed on duress)
- Foreman v. State, 865 N.E.2d 652 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (proportionality of penalties for non-identical offenses)
- McElroy v. State, 865 N.E.2d 584 (Ind.2007) (sentence-review methodology in non-capital cases)
- United States v. Byers, 649 F.3d 197 (4th Cir.2011) (cellular contraband can facilitate inmate crime)
- Moss-Dwyer v. State, 686 N.E.2d 109 (Ind.1997) (deferential review of proportionality under Indiana Constitution)