Thomas King v. State of Indiana
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 369
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On June 13, 2015, Thomas King shot Michael Mason in King’s apartment; Mason died of a single gunshot to the head from over three feet away; no signs of forced entry or a struggle in the apartment.
- Neighbors saw King shortly after the shooting carrying a handgun and telling them he had "just shot a man," that he would claim self-defense, and asking them to hide the gun.
- King told police two men tried to rob him and he shot one; he was calm and unemotional at the scene. A spent cartridge matching ammunition in King’s apartment was found near the body; a phone photo of the gun was recovered.
- King was charged with murder and carrying a handgun without a license; he demanded a speedy trial under Ind. Crim. R. 4(B). Trial was set within 70 days but later moved from Aug. 10 to Aug. 31 due to the court’s calendar congestion.
- Jury convicted King of murder and misdemeanor carrying; bench found habitual offender and imposed 55 years + 10-year enhancement (65 years total, with final 3 years on community corrections). King appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (King) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy trial under Ind. Crim. R. 4(B) | Court may reset beyond 70 days for calendar congestion and prioritize older complex trials | Court violated King’s Rule 4(B) right by scheduling trial after the 70-day deadline; Ervin trial should not have been prioritized | Affirmed: court’s finding of congestion and prioritization of an older murder trial was not clearly erroneous; no reversible violation |
| Admission of witness statements / alleged hearsay/vouching | Prior consistent statements admitted to rebut charge that witness was recently fabricated or influenced; permissible rehabilitation | Testimony of Corrales and officer was hearsay and amounted to improper vouching | Affirmed: statements were prior consistent statements under Evid. R. 801(d)(1) and not improper vouching |
| Sufficiency to rebut self-defense claim | State’s evidence (lack of struggle, autopsy, witness statements, concealment attempt, intoxication, missing pills) negates elements of self-defense | King acted in self-defense against an attempted robbery in his apartment | Affirmed: reasonable jury could find State disproved self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Sentencing clarity (habitual enhancement; community corrections) | Sentencing order sufficiently explains enhancement and community corrections placement | Sentencing order is confusing and requires remand/clarification | Affirmed: order read as a whole was clear; no remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Austin v. State, 997 N.E.2d 1027 (Ind. 2013) (Rule 4(B) does not always require displacing other scheduled trials; appellate review of congestion findings)
- Clark v. State, 659 N.E.2d 548 (Ind. 1995) (extenuating circumstances may justify prioritizing other trials)
- Logan v. State, 16 N.E.3d 953 (Ind. 2014) (discusses interplay of Rule 4(B) and 4(C) timing; no absolute priority rule)
- Bassett v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1201 (Ind. 2008) (prior consistent statements admissible to rehabilitate witness after charge of recent fabrication)
- Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799 (Ind. 2002) (standards for sufficiency when self-defense is raised)
- Miller v. State, 720 N.E.2d 696 (Ind. 1999) (State may rebut self-defense by relying on sufficiency of its evidence)
- McCullough v. State, 985 N.E.2d 1135 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (evidence undercutting struggle and concealment supports rejection of self-defense)