Wayne Campbell v. State of Indiana
3 N.E.3d 1034
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- In 2001 Wayne Campbell assaulted neighbors Jean and Alva Kincaid after disputes over a private easement; Alva suffered catastrophic brain injury and Jean severe facial injuries. Campbell was arrested after a later armed standoff with police.
- Campbell was tried, convicted of two counts of attempted murder and burglary (later reduced from Class A to B on direct appeal), among other offenses, and received an aggregate sentence reduced on transfer to 70 years.
- Campbell filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) raising multiple claims; on appeal he presses two ineffective-assistance claims only.
- Claim 1: trial counsel’s voir dire was deficient for posing hypotheticals about self-defense, attempt, and abandonment that allegedly suggested prejudicial facts.
- Claim 2: trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting when the trial court gave a supplemental definitional instruction for “intentionally” (including a contested second sentence) during jury deliberations.
- The PCR court denied relief; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voir dire tactics | Campbell: counsel misstated law and suggested prejudicial facts via hypotheticals about self-defense and attempt, undermining fairness | State/Counsel: voir dire hypotheticals were legitimate to probe juror attitudes and defenses and did not mirror case facts | Affirmed — counsel’s voir dire was reasonable trial strategy and not objectively deficient |
| Supplemental instruction on "intentionally" | Campbell: the second sentence of the instruction is a misstatement of law and could have relieved State of burden; counsel should have objected | State/Counsel: instruction mirrored pattern and statutory language; law unsettled (Johnson/Corley tension), so no clear basis to object; other instructions preserved burden of proof | Affirmed — no deficient performance and no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
- Robinson v. State, 297 N.E.2d 409 (1973) (prosecutorial voir dire misconduct where hypotheticals closely mirrored unproven facts)
- Johnson v. State, 605 N.E.2d 762 (1992) (upheld similar language about intent in jury instruction as properly stating State’s burden when read with other instructions)
- Corley v. State, 663 N.E.2d 175 (1996) (held a tendered instruction including the contested sentence was not a correct statement of law)
- Campbell v. State, 820 N.E.2d 711 (2005) (direct appeal resolving convictions and sentencing issues)