Samuel E. Sallee v. State of Indiana
51 N.E.3d 130
| Ind. | 2016Background
- In May 2013 Samuel E. Sallee visited the Burton residence where four people (Tommy Smith, Aaron Cross, Shawn Burton, Katheryn Burton) were murdered; the house was ransacked and property was missing.
- Sallee had been at the house earlier that day attempting to trade a .22 rifle for drugs and left before some point that evening; surveillance placed his truck leaving the area around 7:45 p.m.
- Stolen property from the Burton home was later recovered at the residence where Sallee was staying; insulation foam in a trash box concealed victims’ wallets and other items were located there.
- Forensic comparison linked casings from the murder scene to casings from a prior occasion when Sallee had used the same .22 rifle; parts of a rifle stock tied to Sallee’s son’s rifle were recovered at the co-resident’s garage.
- Sallee altered his appearance and clothing after the murders, destroyed part of his rifle, attempted to sell items, and later bragged to fellow detainee Devon Price that he committed the murders and would avoid prosecution; Price testified for the State.
- A jury convicted Sallee on four counts of murder and recommended four consecutive sentences of life without parole; the Indiana Supreme Court reviews sufficiency of the evidence on direct appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to support four murder convictions | State: circumstantial and direct evidence (Price’s confession, recovered property, firearm linkage, post-crime conduct) supports convictions | Sallee: wrong place/wrong time; no DNA/fingerprints; inconsistent timeline; expert not 100% certain; alternate theories/speculation | Affirmed: evidence (direct confession to Price plus corroborating circumstantial proof) sufficient to support convictions |
| Necessity of motive proof | State: motive not required; evidence of drug/financial motive supports theory | Sallee: lack of demonstrated motive undermines case | Held: motive not required; evidence showed possible motive (drugs/money) but court need not rely on it |
| Weight of inconsistent timeline evidence (neighbor testimony) | State: neighbor’s timeline unreliable (drinking, fireworks common) and inconsistent statement does not defeat verdict | Sallee: timeline conflict (surveillance vs neighbor hearing pops) creates reasonable doubt | Held: inconsistency minor; jury could reasonably resolve in favor of State |
| Reliability of firearm expert opinion | State: expert linked casings and rifle parts sufficiently to support inference gun was used in murders | Sallee: expert didn’t state 100% certainty, so linkage insufficient | Held: 100% certainty not required; expert testimony admissible and probative |
Key Cases Cited
- McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124 (appellate review limited to probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting verdict)
- Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904 (credibility/weight are factfinder duties)
- Moore v. State, 652 N.E.2d 53 (appellate courts need not require proof to overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence)
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (conviction may rest on reasonable inferences from evidence)
- Green v. State, 587 N.E.2d 1314 (circumstantial evidence alone can sustain a conviction)
- Bunch v. State, 697 N.E.2d 1255 (motive is not an element the State must prove)
- Bailey v. State, 979 N.E.2d 133 (a single witness’s testimony can support conviction)
- Carr v. State, 728 N.E.2d 125 (confession to another is direct evidence)
- Beasley v. State, 370 N.E.2d 360 (evidence amounting only to mere suspicion is insufficient to convict)