Robert B. Scoggins v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
45A03-1608-CR-1902
Ind. Ct. App.Mar 7, 2017Background
- December 19, 2014: Robert Scoggins and his girlfriend Miriam Murray were drinking; an altercation occurred after Scoggins became angry about money, culminating in Scoggins striking Murray and repeatedly hitting her with a chair.
- Murray suffered catastrophic facial and ocular injuries (ruptured eyeball, muscle rupture, orbital fracture) and ultimately had her right eye removed; she and her sister sought emergency treatment nearby.
- Scoggins was charged with multiple counts, convicted by a jury of felony offenses, and judgment was entered for level 3 felony aggravated battery (other counts merged/dismissed on double jeopardy grounds).
- At trial the State admitted four hospital photographs of Murray’s injuries (two full-face angles, two close-ups); defense objected, and only two full-face photos were published to the jury.
- At sentencing the court found one mitigating factor (circumstances of the crime) but also found aggravators (prior arrests indicating anger issues and the victim relationship) and imposed an eight-year executed sentence (below the 9-year advisory for a Level 3 felony).
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Scoggins' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of victim photographs | Photos were relevant to show injury severity and to rebut self-defense; probative value outweighed prejudice | Photos were irrelevant or cumulative and unduly prejudicial because severity of injury was not contested | Court: No abuse of discretion; photos were relevant to refute self-defense and not unfairly prejudicial; only two were published |
| Sentencing — failure to find mitigators (age, no convictions) | Trial court discretion; not required to accept defendant's characterization of mitigators | Court should have found age (64) and lack of convictions as mitigators, lowering sentence | Court: No abuse of discretion; prior arrest history (including assaults) undermined claim that age/no convictions were significant mitigators |
| Sentence appropriateness under Appellate Rule 7(B) | Eight years (below advisory) was reasonable given offense and character | Sentence is excessive; defendant should receive minimum (3 years) | Court: Defendant failed to meet burden; sentence not inappropriate given nature of the violent offense and history of arrests |
Key Cases Cited
- Pruitt v. State, 834 N.E.2d 90 (Ind. 2005) (standard of appellate review for photographic evidence)
- Ward v. State, 903 N.E.2d 946 (Ind. 2009) (photographs depicting injuries generally admissible)
- Corbett v. State, 764 N.E.2d 622 (Ind. 2002) (gruesome photos admissible if probative as interpretative aids)
- Swingley v. State, 739 N.E.2d 132 (Ind. 2000) (supporting principle on photographic evidence)
- Baer v. State, 866 N.E.2d 752 (Ind. 2007) (unfair prejudice inquiry under Evidence Rule 403)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standards for appellate review of sentencing discretion)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (role of appellate review under Rule 7(B))
- Purvis v. State, 829 N.E.2d 572 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (appellate authority to revise sentences)
- Healey v. State, 969 N.E.2d 607 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (burden to show mitigating evidence is significant and clearly supported)
- Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (defendant bears burden to show sentence inappropriate)