Steven L. Small v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
42A04-1703-CR-606
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 7, 2017Background
- On July 1, 2016, Conservation Officer Shane Cooper investigated a parked white car near a creek; Steven Small approached and spoke with the officer in a notably loud voice.
- Officer Cooper heard noises under a bridge; he led Small down a path where he observed a cooler, bucket, napkins with a white powdery substance, stripped batteries on a wooden spoon, and other items consistent with methamphetamine manufacture.
- A woman (Teresa Merydith) fled in the white car; the powder tested positive for methamphetamine (0.11 grams); a fingerprint on camp fuel in the cooler matched Small.
- Small was arrested, charged with Level 5 felony dealing in methamphetamine (alleging manufacture), and convicted by a jury; the court sentenced him to six years with five years suspended to probation (including community corrections).
- Small appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by refusing two proffered jury instructions on accomplice liability (concerning mere presence/failure to oppose and need for affirmative conduct). The trial court instead gave the pattern accomplice instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in refusing Small’s two accomplice-liability jury instructions | State: the pattern instruction adequately and correctly instructed the jury on accomplice liability | Small: the court should have given instructions stating mere presence/failure to oppose is insufficient and that affirmative conduct must be shown | No error — the substance of Small’s proposed instructions was covered by the pattern instruction, so refusal was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Castillo v. State, 974 N.E.2d 458 (Ind. 2012) (explains accomplice liability and that presence alone is insufficient)
- Vandivier v. State, 822 N.E.2d 1047 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (statements on mere presence and need for affirmative conduct discussed in sufficiency context)
- Gravens v. State, 836 N.E.2d 490 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (prefers use of pattern jury instructions over appellate language)
- Guyton v. State, 771 N.E.2d 1141 (Ind. 2002) (sets criteria for reviewing refusal of jury instructions)
- Treadway v. State, 924 N.E.2d 621 (Ind. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard and prejudice requirement for instruction error)
- Townsend v. State, 934 N.E.2d 118 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (no error where tendered instruction’s substance was covered by instructions given)