O'CONNELL v. State
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 260
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- O'Connell was convicted in Delaware Circuit Court of attempted escape, disorderly conduct, and public intoxication after a July 28, 2009 incident.
- At trial, O'Connell claimed a seizure that morning affected his conduct and tendered jury instructions about voluntariness.
- The court gave the statutory voluntariness wording but refused several instructions inserting the word 'voluntary' into the offense elements.
- The jury found O'Connell guilty as charged and he was sentenced to two years for attempted escape with other misdemeanor terms concurrent to probation.
- On appeal, O'Connell argued the court abused its discretion by not giving his voluntariness-based instructions.
- The Indiana Court of Appeals majority affirmed, holding the instructions as a whole adequately informed the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused its discretion in refusing voluntariness-inserting instructions | O'Connell | State | No abuse; instructions as a whole sufficed |
Key Cases Cited
- McClain v. State, 678 N.E.2d 104 (Ind. 1997) (voluntariness basis for liability)
- Baird v. State, 604 N.E.2d 1170 (Ind. 1992) (once voluntariness is raised, State must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Davidson v. State, 849 N.E.2d 591 (Ind. 2006) (intoxication defense; voluntariness not the sole path when relevant defenses exist)
- Sanders v. State, 466 N.E.2d 424 (Ind. 1984) (voluntariness instruction covered by other instructions)
- Munford v. State, 923 N.E.2d 11 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (standard for evaluating tendered instructions)
- Hurt v. State, 570 N.E.2d 16 (Ind. 1991) (instruction sufficiency examined as whole)