978 N.E.2d 475
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- Appellant-Defendant Tyler White was convicted of murder after a bifurcated trial; the State sought a feticide enhancement under Indiana law based on the death of Amy Meyer’s fetus.
- The State moved to admit hearsay evidence under Evidence Rule 804(b)(5) to show White’s motive to prevent Amy from testifying at a provisional custody hearing.
- The trial court admitted the 804(b)(5) statements after a hearing finding Amy unavailable due to White’s wrongdoing, with preponderance of the evidence standard.
- White challenges the 804(b)(5) ruling, arguing the State failed to prove motive to procure unavailability and contends the statute’s lack of mens rea is unconstitutional.
- The State also sought to enhance the murder sentence under Indiana Code § 35-50-2-16, and White challenges the statute’s constitutionality and the absence of a judicially supplied mens rea, as well as the exclusion of evidence about Amy’s prior miscarriage.
- The appellate court affirmed both the murder conviction and the feticide enhancement, rejecting White’s constitutional challenges and evidentiary objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 804(b)(5) admissibility of statements | White argues the State failed to prove motive to procure unavailability | White asserts no intent to prevent testimony, thus no forfeiture | Admissible; preponderance standard satisfied; motive shown via intent to impede a custody hearing |
| Constitutionality of feticide enhancement | Statute punishes without requiring mens rea; violates due process | Statute expresses legislative policy; no mens rea required | Constitutionality upheld; no mens rea required by statute |
| Judicial supplementation of mens rea | Court should supply mens rea to require pregnancy knowledge | Legislature expressly excluded mens rea; should not read in | No judicially supplied mens rea; statute respected as written |
| Exclusion of evidence of prior miscarriage | Evidence would support defense understanding pregnancy risk | Evidence irrelevant to enhancement | No abuse of discretion; evidence excluded as irrelevant |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635 (2d Cir. 2001) (forfeiture by wrongdoing requires showing motive to silence witness, with balancing under 403)
- U.S. v. Houlihan, 92 F.3d 1271 (1st Cir. 1996) (necessity of proving improper motive to procure unavailability)
- Thai v. State, 29 F.3d 785 (4th Cir. 1994) (credibility and evidentiary standards in 804(b)(5) determinations)
- McCann v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1116 (Ind. 2001) (pregnancy as aggravation; lack of knowledge not required for certain enhancements)
- Stevens v. State, 691 N.E.2d 412 (Ind. 1997) (distinguishes knowledge from aggravating circumstances; sentencing enhancements)
- Giles v. State, 554 U.S. 353 (2008) (confrontation considerations regarding hearsay statements in certain contexts)
- Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (1952) (discusses difficulty of defining mens rea for crimes)
- Stevens v. State, 691 N.E.2d 412 (Ind. 1997) (distinguishes knowledge requirements in certain penalties)