Richard E. Simmons v. State of Indiana
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 627
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Simmons was convicted of four counts of Class A felony attempted murder, two counts of Class D felony criminal recklessness while armed with a deadly weapon, one count of Class D felony unlawful use of body armor, and one count of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana after shooting at officers serving an arrest warrant.
- On October 16, 2011, thirteen officers went to Simmons's residence to serve the warrants; Simmons was in the basement behind a water heater.
- Officers formed a tactical stack outside the laundry room; they announced commands and identified agencies; Simmons did not come out when ordered.
- Simmons fired at the officers; officers fired back; the confrontation moved through the doorway and into a adjacent room.
- SWAT eventually entered, used gas canisters, Simmons fired again, and surrendered after further gas canisters were deployed.
- Simmons argued entitlement to directed verdict on some counts, improper presumption-of-innocence instructions, and an inappropriate aggregate sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted murder | Simmons asserts no proof he knew officers were behind the wall. | Simmons contends lack of specific intent to kill due to unseen officers. | Sufficient evidence supported knowledge of officers and intent. |
| Presumption of innocence instructions | Simmons contends the three-part instruction (continues throughout trial) was required. | Court adequately instructed; preliminary instruction covered the concept; final instructions were sufficient. | No abuse of discretion; instructions were adequate in context. |
| Consecutive sentences and overall appropriateness | Aggregate 132-year sentence was inappropriate given the offense and offender. | Multiple victims justify consecutive sentences; court did not abuse discretion. | Consecutive sentences appropriate; aggregate sentence upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Henley v. State, 881 N.E.2d 639 (Ind.2008) (intent to kill may be inferred from use of deadly weapon)
- Champlain v. State, 681 N.E.2d 696 (Ind.1997) (victim's location knowledge can support knowledge of victim when firing)
- Lee v. State, 964 N.E.2d 859 (Ind.Ct.App.2012) (three-part instruction required if requested; omission may be reversible error)
- Farley v. State, 127 Ind. 419, 26 N.E. 898 (Ind.1891) (origin of three-part instruction for presumption of innocence)
- Robey v. State, 454 N.E.2d 1221 (Ind.1983) (three-part instruction reaffirmed)
- Castle v. State, 75 Ind. 146 (Ind.1881) (juror-specific conviction requirements)
- Aszman v. State, 123 Ind. 347, 24 N.E. 123 (Ind.1889) (instruction must cover individual responsibility of each juror)
- Fernbach v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1080 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (consecutive sentences upheld for multiple victims)