Steinberg v. State
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 52
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Steinberg bought an AR-15 with accessories and showed it to roommates; he discussed destroying the gun with welding tanks.
- He shot Monroe County Officer Brand in February 2005 and later acted suspiciously, including comments to roommates.
- Steinberg was charged with murder in 2007 and convicted in 2009, receiving a 65-year sentence.
- During trial, recordings of jailhouse phone calls to Steinberg’s parents were admitted over objections.
- The State sought to introduce an email from 2003 asking about extenuating circumstances to negate liability.
- The appeals focused on wiretap issues, redaction, and sentencing-related challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of jailhouse calls under Wiretap Act | Steinberg argues recordings violated federal and Indiana acts | State contends ordinary course of business applies | Recordings admissible under ordinary course of business exception |
| Redaction of parent calls | Redaction required to exclude prejudicial content | Context needed; redaction would render transcripts nonsensical | No abuse; redaction upheld as necessary for context and probative value |
| Admission of 2003 email about extenuating circumstances | Email too remote and irrelevant to Brand murder | Remoteness still shows linkage to defense theory | Admission was error but harmless beyond reasonable doubt |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument | Prosecutor misstated law affecting involuntary manslaughter | Any misstatement insufficient to prejudice; instructions cured error | No reversible prosecutorial misconduct; no impact on verdict |
| Mental health as mitigating factor at sentencing | Mental health history supports mitigation | No nexus between mental health and crime; no mitigating factor | No abuse of sentencing discretion; mental health not a mitigating factor |
Key Cases Cited
- Lovitt v. State, 915 N.E.2d 1040 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (deference to trial court on evidentiary rulings; abuse requires clear error)
- Edwards v. State, 862 N.E.2d 1254 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (consent to recording in Indiana Wiretap Act context)
- Baer v. State, 866 N.E.2d 752 (Ind. 2007) (jail-recording consent not require handbook existence)
- Cook v. State, 734 N.E.2d 563 (Ind. 2000) (harmless error standard for improper evidence)
- Oldham v. State, 779 N.E.2d 1162 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (murder conviction sustainment on circumstantial evidence)