Orta v. State
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 17
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- Orta was convicted of murder, Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle with a controlled substance in the blood, and Class C felony failure to stop at the scene of an accident resulting in death following a 2008 South Bend collision.
- Orta crossed the center line, struck the Toner brothers on Ironwood Drive, and then allegedly backed up and drove over Craig Toner, before crashing and being intoxicated at the scene.
- Autopsy showed Toner died from multiple blunt force injuries; forensic testimony suggested the second impact caused death rather than the initial collision.
- Orta’s BAC was .289 and cocaine was detected, and he admitted leaving the scene because he was scared; he later returned and his actions led to Toner’s death.
- Trial occurred October 6-8, 2009; the trial court later reduced the Class B felony conviction to a Class A misdemeanor; the aggregate sentence was 65 years.
- On appeal, Orta challenged mistrial denial, cross-examination limits, intoxication instructions, double jeopardy remedy, Sanchez application, and the sentence as inappropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mistrial denial challenged | Orta alleges grave peril from juror’s knowledge. | State contends no grave peril; cure by dismissal and admonitions. | No abuse; admonitions cured prejudice. |
| Limitation on cross-examination of Dr. Wagner | Orta could not present defense theory about intoxication affecting mental state. | Limitations were proper; voluntary intoxication not a defense under law. | No abuse; cross-examination scope properly limited. |
| Jury instruction on voluntary intoxication | Instruction misstates law or precludes defense based on intoxication. | Instruction correctly states law and aligns with Sanchez. | Waived on appeal; instruction correct and not reversible. |
| Double jeopardy remedy by reduction vs vacating | Reduction should not alleviate double jeopardy concerns. | Reduction to lesser included offense cures double jeopardy. | Properly alleviated; reduction avoided double jeopardy. |
| Application of Sanchez and intoxication defense | Trial court correctly applied Sanchez to bar voluntary intoxication as defense. | Sanchez allows presenting intoxication but not as defense; misapplication alleged. | Correct application; voluntary intoxication not a defense under Sanchez. |
Key Cases Cited
- Norton v. State, 785 N.E.2d 625 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (grave peril standard; admonitions cure prejudice)
- Sanchez v. State, 749 N.E.2d 509 (Ind. 2001) (voluntary intoxication governs mental-state elements; intoxication not defense)
- Scisney v. State, 701 N.E.2d 847 (Ind. 1998) (required contemporaneous objection identically to preserve instruction error)
- Helsley v. State, 809 N.E.2d 292 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (waiver when failure to raise issues at trial)
- Howard v. State, 818 N.E.2d 469 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (waiver and grounds for appellate review of jury instructions)
- Owens v. State, 742 N.E.2d 538 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (double jeopardy remedy via reduction of convictions)
- Sanders v. State, 734 N.E.2d 646 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (double jeopardy and lesser-included offense considerations)