Stacy Lamont Griffin v. State of Indiana
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 299
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On May 13, 2016, two men wearing matching black baseball caps (Griffin and Coleman) lingered in a Kroger cosmetics aisle staring toward the pharmacy; employees, alerted by suspicious behavior, summoned help and the men left quickly.
- Police detained Griffin outside the store; he gave a false name, had a handwritten demand note for opioid-related drugs in his pocket, and implicated Coleman, who discarded a loaded handgun into a nearby trash can when officers arrived.
- Griffin was charged with Attempted Robbery (Level 5 felony), Conspiracy to Commit Robbery, and False Informing; the False Informing charge was dismissed, and he was acquitted of conspiracy but convicted of attempted robbery (lesser-included offense) after a three-day jury trial.
- Griffin filed pretrial motions seeking individualized voir dire and to prohibit judicial "rehabilitation" (the so-called "magic question") because of local media publicity and community size; the trial court denied individualized voir dire and conducted group voir dire.
- The jury returned a guilty verdict for Attempted Robbery; Griffin was sentenced to the maximum six-year term (advisory 3 years; range 1–6) after the court found multiple aggravators and mitigators.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Griffin's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether group voir dire (vs. individualized) in a small community with pretrial publicity denied defendant an impartial jury | Group voir dire was within the trial court’s discretion; seated jurors said they could set aside prior knowledge and follow instructions | Pretrial publicity and comments by veniremembers tainted the panel; individualized voir dire was necessary to avoid spreading inadmissible information among jurors | No abuse of discretion; jurors either had no fixed opinions or said they could set them aside, so individualized voir dire not required (affirmed) |
| Sufficiency of the evidence to support attempted robbery conviction | Evidence (surveillance behavior, rapid exit, possession of a demand note, companion discarding a gun, false ID) supported intent and a substantial step toward robbery | Defense: Griffin was merely in the wrong place; lacked proof of intent to commit robbery | Sufficient evidence supported intent and a substantial step; conviction upheld |
| Appropriateness of six-year sentence (maximum) | Sentence justified by nature of offense (attempted pharmacy robbery targeting opioids) and defendant’s significant criminal history and failed rehabilitative attempts | Griffin asked for sentence reduction to four years | Sentence not inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B); six-year term affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. State, 563 N.E.2d 103 (Ind. 1990) (trial court has discretion over individualized voir dire; individual voir dire may be required only in highly unusual or potentially damaging circumstances)
- Collins v. State, 826 N.E.2d 671 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (jurors need not be totally ignorant to be fair; ability to set aside opinions is controlling)
- Oeth v. State, 775 N.E.2d 696 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (definition of a substantial step in attempt: minimal requirement, often any overt act in furtherance)
- Stokes v. State, 922 N.E.2d 758 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (knowledge and intent may be inferred from circumstantial evidence)
- Bailey v. State, 979 N.E.2d 133 (Ind. 2012) (standard for reviewing sufficiency: affirm if substantial probative evidence supports each element)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (Appellate Rule 7(B) review: revise sentence only if inappropriate in light of offense and offender)
- Weisheit v. State, 26 N.E.3d 3 (Ind. 2015) (exhaustion rule for peremptory challenges when seeking review of for-cause juror rulings)