Reese v. State
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 11
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Reese was convicted of Attempted Murder (Class A), Resisting Law Enforcement (Class A misdemeanor), and Carrying a Handgun Without a License (Class A, elevated to Class C).
- Incident stemmed from July 10, 2008 pursuit of Reese after he fled Bishop’s residence armed with a handgun and shot at officers.
- Officer Fishburn was shot in the head during the chase; he survived after treatment.
- Trial admitted some 404(b) evidence and limited fanatic challenges;Defendant argued 404(b) and door-opening issues.
- Reese was sentenced to an aggregate 59 years; appeal challenged evidentiary rulings, jury instruction, sufficiency, and sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of 404(b) evidence | Reese contends 404(b) used to prove propensity. | State contends evidence relevant to plan/knowledge and door-opening. | Evidence properly admitted; door-opening exception justified. |
| Jury instruction on intent | Instruction unduly emphasizes evidence and misleads on intent. | Instruction properly framed probable inference of intent from weapon use. | Instruction not reversible error; not unduly prejudicial. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Attempted Murder | There was sufficient intent to kill; shooting toward officer shows requisite mens rea. | Evidence insufficient to prove intent to kill beyond reasonable doubt. | Sufficient evidence; intent inferred from shooting case details. |
| Sentencing - mitigating factor | Trial court ignored significant mitigating factor of undue hardship on dependents. | Court properly weighed factors; no abuse in giving minimal weight to this factor. | No abuse; mitigating factor properly weighed, no compelling needs to reweigh. |
| Sentence appropriateness under App. R. 7(B) | Maximum sentence warranted by offense and offender’s history. | Sentence within statutory range; not inappropriate given gravity and prior conduct. | Sentence affirmed as not inappropriate; within statutory bounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hicks v. State, 690 N.E.2d 215 (Ind. 1997) (404(b) relevance and balancing admissibility guide)
- Smith v. State, 754 N.E.2d 502 (Ind. 2001) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Camm v. State, 908 N.E.2d 215 (Ind. 2009) (balance probative value vs. prejudice under 403)
- Ham v. State, 826 N.E.2d 640 (Ind. 2005) (instructing on inference of guilt from evidence)
- Dill v. State, 741 N.E.2d 1230 (Ind. 2001) (avoidance of misleading emphasis on evidentiary facts)
- Ludy v. State, 784 N.E.2d 459 (Ind. 2003) (conviction may not rest solely on uncorroborated testimony)
- Bethel v. State, 730 N.E.2d 1242 (Ind. 2000) (no error in allowing inference from use of deadly weapon)
- Davis v. State, 558 N.E.2d 811 (Ind. 1990) (intent to kill may be inferred from act using deadly weapon)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (sentencing review; must identify mitigating factors when present)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (factors for reviewing sentence under appropriateness standard)