Webb v. State
2012 Ind. LEXIS 51
| Ind. | 2012Background
- Webb charged with murder for the shooting death of his girlfriend Reyes; trial court denied his request for a reckless homicide instruction.
- Evidence at the scene included Webb and others handling a handgun, multiple fights between Webb and Reyes, and conflicting testimony about responsibility and the gun's loading status.
- Webb testified he was not present or not the shooter; other witnesses described actions and statements suggesting different states of mind.
- A jury found Webb guilty of murder and also determined Webb was an habitual offender; he was sentenced to 65 years for murder plus 30 years for the habitual offender enhancement.
- Appellate courts addressed multiple issues, with the Indiana Supreme Court reversing on the jury-instruction issue and leaving other issues summarily affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by denying a reckless homicide instruction | Webb urged the instruction be given under Wright framework. | State contended no serious evidentiary dispute warranted the lesser instruction. | Reversible error; the instruction should have been given. |
| Whether there was a serious evidentiary dispute about Webb's state of mind | Webb claimed the State's evidence created a dispute permitting the lesser offense. | State argued no meaningful dispute justified lesser instruction. | Yes, there was a serious evidentiary dispute; warrants reckless homicide instruction. |
| Whether admission of Webb's videotaped interview was reversible error | Webb challenged the trial court's evidentiary rulings regarding the interview. | State defended the admissibility of the interview. | Affirmed; no reversible error on this issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright v. State, 658 N.E.2d 563 (Ind. 1995) (three-part test for lesser included offenses; consider evidence from both sides)
- Davenport v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1144 (Ind. 2001) (reckless homicide is inherent lesser offense of murder)
- Young v. State, 699 N.E.2d 252 (Ind. 1998) (alibi does not automatically bar lesser included offense instruction)
- Champlain v. State, 681 N.E.2d 696 (Ind. 1997) (defendant's theory may still require lesser instruction when serious evidentiary dispute exists)
- Wilson v. State, 697 N.E.2d 466 (Ind. 1998) (insanity defense analogy; cannot use defense as mechanism to create dispute)
- Fisher v. State, 810 N.E.2d 674 (Ind. 2004) (defendant's testimony about intent can create need for lesser instruction when disputed)