William Clyde Gibson III v. State of Indiana
2015 Ind. LEXIS 828
| Ind. | 2015Background
- Defendant William C. Gibson III sexually assaulted, strangled, mutilated, and dismembered 75-year-old Christine Whitis; he continued sexual acts after her death and removed a breast which he kept in the victim’s van.
- Police apprehended Gibson after a brief chase; he admitted the killing and claimed he had “snapped” and did not plan to kill her.
- The State charged murder, sought death, and alleged four statutory aggravators: intentional killing while committing criminal deviate conduct (mouth/victim sex organ), while committing criminal deviate conduct (penetration by an object), while on probation, and dismemberment.
- Trial venue was moved to Dearborn County due to publicity; jury selection occurred in two phases with detailed voir dire and several contested challenges.
- After conviction, the jury found all four aggravators proven, recommended death, and the trial court imposed death; Gibson appealed raising six principal trial-court errors and argued his death sentence was inappropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Gibson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of fourth continuance | Trial court within discretion; no statutory entitlement and defendant failed to show prejudice | Needed more time to review ongoing discovery; continuance necessary for preparation | Denial affirmed; defendant failed to show how extra time would aid defense |
| Dismissal of entire venire / mistrial for juror exposure to other murder allegations | Voir dire cured exposure; those with knowledge were excused and no empaneled juror was tainted | Pretrial publicity ("serial killer" reports) so pervasive the panel was incurably tainted | Denial affirmed; court individually questioned and excused exposed venire members; no sworn juror shown to be disqualified |
| Asking case-specific hypothetical in voir dire | Specific facts asking jurors how they would decide is improper and risks shaping the jury | Needed to determine if jurors would automatically vote death given facts (sexual assault, elderly victim, dismemberment) | Denial affirmed; court properly limited voir dire to discover bias without soliciting verdicts in advance |
| For-cause challenges to several jurors | Many challenged never served or were excused without peremptory use; those who served expressed ability to be fair | Certain jurors had unqualified views (e.g., could not consider life without parole or were biased by elderly victim) | Denial affirmed for jurors who served; trial court did not abuse discretion in finding jurors could follow law |
| Refusal to give voluntary manslaughter instruction | Evidence did not support sudden heat provocation; killing was prolonged and violent, not heat of passion | Defendant’s intoxication, grief, and statements that he "snapped" created evidence of sudden heat | Denial affirmed; no appreciable evidence that ordinary person would be rendered incapable of cool reflection |
| Appropriateness of death sentence under Rule 7(B) | Nature of offense and offender warrant death given extreme brutality, sexual conduct, post-mortem acts, dismemberment, and criminal history | Comparable cases received lesser terms; mitigating evidence (mental illness, alcoholism, grief) outweighs aggravators | Affirmed; sentence not inappropriate in light of offense and offender; jurors reasonably weighed aggravation vs mitigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Lindsey v. State, 295 N.E.2d 819 (Ind. 1973) (mistrial required if jurors exposed to prejudicial out-of-court material and peril is uncurable)
- Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 (1992) (defendant entitled to question prospective jurors about death-penalty biases)
- Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985) (standard for excusing jurors for cause when views would substantially impair duties)
- Washington v. State, 808 N.E.2d 617 (Ind. 2004) (standard for voluntary manslaughter / sudden heat instruction)
- Oswalt v. State, 19 N.E.3d 241 (Ind. 2014) (exhaustion rule and review standard for for-cause juror challenges)
- Weisheit v. State, 26 N.E.3d 3 (Ind. 2015) (presumption that juries follow instructions; no requirement to explain weighing of mitigators)