Tami L. Duvall v. State of Indiana
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 521
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Duvall was convicted of Murder, six counts of Insurance Fraud, and three counts of Obstruction of Justice; the convictions and sentences were challenged on evidentiary and doctrinal grounds.
- The murder investigation revealed lethal morphine (Roxanol) and cyclobenzaprine levels in the victim, with Duvall seeking a $100,000 life insurance policy naming herself as beneficiary.
- Duvall had financial stress and encouraged the husband to obtain life insurance; she stood to gain from the policy if his death wasn’t accidental.
- Evidence showed inconsistencies in Duvall’s statements about the death, her drug use notes, and behavior after the death, including cremation arrangements.
- The trial court admitted prior-act evidence under Rule 404(b) related to a poisoning claim; the State relied on 404(b) and 104(b) to connect missing Roxanol to Duvall’s access to a murder weapon.
- The court applied the continuing-crime doctrine to find one Insurance Fraud offense and one Obstruction of Justice offense among multiple convictions and remanded to vacate the rest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 404(b) evidence of poisoning was properly admitted. | State contends defense opened door to intent evidence. | Duvall asserts improper, overly broad use of 404(b). | Harmless error; substantial independent guilt evidence exists. |
| Whether missing Roxanol testimony and Rule 104(b) analysis were proper. | State argues admissible to show access to murder weapon. | Waiver and potential fundamental error; evidence tenuous. | Not reversible error; evidence supports access theory. |
| Whether continuing-crime doctrine defeats multiple convictions for Insurance Fraud and Obstruction of Justice. | Multiple acts form a single continuing offense. | Convictions were separate offenses. | Affirm one Insurance Fraud and one Obstruction; remand to vacate others. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wickizer v. State, 626 N.E.2d 795 (Ind. 1993) (intent exception narrowly construed when defendant asserts contrary intent)
- Koo v. State, 640 N.E.2d 95 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (rebutting specific contrary intent may permit prior acts evidence)
- Burgett v. State, 758 N.E.2d 571 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (admission depends on defense presenting contrary factual claim)
- Bryant v. State, 802 N.E.2d 486 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (prior misconduct evidence may rebut defendant’s claimed facts)
- Lafayette v. State, 917 N.E.2d 660 (Ind. 2009) (intent exception narrowly construed; limits on 404(b))