Suding v. State, 2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 474

Suding was convicted of three counts of Class A felony conspiracy to commit murder following a July–July 2009 scheme against multiple targets, including Scott, her attorney, and a judge.
Evidence included Suding’s preparations: purchasing handguns, disguising weapons, scouting locations, and a recorded plan to blow up the judge’s house and kill victims.
Initial charging information began with one conspiracy count; the State later added five counts and later amended the dates and acts alleged in the conspiracy.
The State’s December amendments extended the time frame and added overt acts after the omnibus date, prompting an objection from Suding who did not request a continuance.
The trial occurred January 20–22, 2010; Suding was sentenced to forty years on each of the three counts, to run concurrently, with five years suspended per count.
The Court of Appeals affirmed without reversing on any issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Effect of late amendments on Suding’s defense	Amendments altered substantial rights and prejudiced Suding.	Late amendments deprived him of adequate prep time and defense.	Amendments did not prejudice substantial rights.
Prosecutor's reference to uncharged prior act in opening	Improper allusion to prior allegation likely influenced jurors.	Comment was fleeting, not core, and did not undermine the trial.	Not grave misconduct; no fundamental error.
Mistrial denial based on wife's testimony	Admission violated motion in limine and warranted mistrial.	Admonition cured error and no grave peril to defendant.	No abuse; admonition cured taint.
Sufficiency of the evidence	Renee's testimony of intent and acts established conspiracy with intent to murder.	Co-conspirator’s intent and scope were insufficient to prove murder conspiracy.	Unilateral conspiracy sufficient; conviction upheld.
Sentencing discretion	Forty-year sentences were improper as outside advisory range given mitigators.	Trial court acted within discretion with proper mitigation/aggravation analysis.	No abuse of discretion; sentencing affirmed.

Sides v. State, 693 N.E.2d 1310 (Ind. 1998) (substantial rights require prejudice from late amendments)
Jones v. State, 863 N.E.2d 333 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (anticipated amendment based on shared evidence does not violate substantial rights)
Lafayette v. State, 917 N.E.2d 660 (Ind. 2009) (prior bad acts referenced did not render verdict unreliable)
Harris v. State, 878 N.E.2d 504 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (references to prior offenses may be harmless when overwhelming evidence exists)
Tompkins v. State, 669 N.E.2d 394 (Ind. 1996) (fleeting reference to past crimes does not require mistrial)
Owens v. State, 937 N.E.2d 880 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (admonition can cure evidentiary error from in limine violation)
Vanzandt v. State, 731 N.E.2d 450 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (strong evidence can mitigate impact of improper reference)
Garcia v. State, 271 Ind. 510 (1979) (unilateral conspiracy suffices to prove conspiracy to commit a crime)
Williams v. State, 748 N.E.2d 887 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (insufficient evidence of intent to murder required reversal in robbery context)
Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (sentencing must be supported by record and reasoned statem ents)