Canaan v. State

claims the were irrelevant and also bullets CANAAN, to the Appellant

immaterial State’s case. Keith B. (Defendant below), gun, regard to the Detective Mi- With dlam testified that when he arrived at the shooting, scene of the Officer Anderson Indiana, Appellee STATE of gave gun of him a which he retained con- (Plaintiff below). except period trol for the the Indiana State laboratory No. 82S00-8705-CR-521. Police had it. Midlam identified being the serial number Exhibit as Supreme Court Indiana. gun same as the one he recorded for the Also, gave Officer Anderson him. witness- 28, July 1989. they es testified Tiller gun saw throw the nearby in some weeds. Officer Anderson gun

found the immediately near the scene shooting.

after the gun

Tiller concedes that a much less

fungible items, than other and the less

fungible item, scrutiny the less regarding

court will use chain-of-custody. go

The issue weight will to the

evidence rather than admissibility. its (1986),

Boyd Ind., 284, v. State 494 N.E.2d (1987), cert. denied

S.Ct. 93 L.Ed.2d 860.

Exhibit the bullets found in the

gun, was relevant and material in that it

tended to show that when Tiller fired the

gun he meant to kill Arnett. This is bol

stered the fact that witnesses heard

Tiller threaten to finish off Arnett. points State also out that because explain

Tiller did not give a basis for his

objection at trial or in his Motion to Correct

Errors, any possible waived error on issue. See v. State Ashford Ind., 1298, 1301; 464 N.E.2d Nunn v. State Ind., 450 N.E.2d

The trial court is affirmed.

SHEPARD, C.J., and DeBRULER GIVAN, JJ., concur.

DICKSON, J., concurs in result opinion.

without Harris,

Barry Standley Beverly K. L. Evansville, appellant. for Pearson, Linley Atty. Gen., Joseph E. N. Stevenson, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapo- lis, appellee. for PIVARNIK, Justice. Defendant-Appellant Keith Canaan Murder, charged felony, with Class Burglary, B felony, a Class and Criminal Conduct, felony. a Class A He Deviate Murder, Burglary, convicted Attempted He Criminal Deviate Conduct. was also determined be an Habitual Of- fender, by which would enhance a sentence However, (30) thirty years. an additional a term of Canaan was not sentenced to years sentenced but was to death. appeals directly Court and Canaan to this consol- raises numerous issues which we idate and restate follows: capital Indiana sentenc- 1. whether the ing is unconstitutional because scheme as to makes a recommendation im- penalty whether the death posed; charging Canaan 2. whether the State’s criminal and being an habitual seeking simultaneously the death and 8th jeopardy his double violates rights; Amendment trial its 3. whether the court abused admitting pack in of “Kool” discretion evidence; cigarettes into brand admitting in certain 4. court error trial evidence; fingerprint excluding in certain 5. court error trial police offi- statements Canaan made to cers; refusing grant

6. error trial court evi- verdict due insufficient directed dence; denying rettes, court a motion money, 7. trial error some a billfold and a wrist- improper due for mistrial remarks watch. during argument;

made final prior One to two weeks to Bullock’s giving 8. an trial court error instruc- death, apartment. Canaan had been her con- tion criminal deviate roommates, Bullock and two her Chris duct; and Rush, Hillsmyer and Linda were at home. refusing give trial court error in asleep Bullock however was in a back bed- certain tendered instructions. room and she and Canaan never each saw other. Canaan had knocked on the door The facts most favorable the verdict looking girls and stated he was for the 29,1985, approx- show that on December upstairs. Hillsmyer told him he could wait a.m., imately patrolman 2:45 William them, sat on the couch dispatch Barnes received a and went to him, He door. had a case of beer with Evansville, Fairmont in Indiana. tattoos, showed roommates his and fell apartment address was located build- asleep on Hillsmyer eventually the couch. ing, building laundry room interior got leave, him to but he returned the next open. apart- and exterior doors were morning phone. Al- and asked to use the though ment itself looked as it had been though Hillsmyer refused, initially a fourth proceeded ransacked. Barnes an to end roommate, Traver, thought Jean she knew bedroom; the bedroom door to had him Canaan and let in. Traver him allowed victim, Bullock, been kicked in. The Lori phone. to use the She stated at trial that lay on one of the beds. Barnes checked anything Canaan never touched in the pulse, Bullock’s and found she was dead. (cid:127) kitchen area. protruded right butcher knife from the killed, day Bullock was she and super- side of her throat. Barnes called his Hillsmyer gone shopping had at the East- visor and secured the area. money land Mall. Bullock counted her af- Members of the Crime Scene Technical home; returning ter approximately she had early Unit arrived hours of that in her wallet. Then Bullock and Hills- $200 morning. day period Over a three evidence myer went to the Executive Inn. Bullock gathered. Some evidence was found Hillsmyer loaned her car for the evening apartment, outside the including articles of early and went home because she had to clothing, towel, and food items. The morning. Hillsmyer work the next called apartment fingerprints. was dusted for approximately Bullock at evening 9:00 that addition, Officer Barnes tested the door to car; to see whether Bullock needed her she apartment and found that even when said she did not. lock, the door was locked with the deadbolt Bathe, Ricky boyfriend, Bullock’s went good pop open. shove would it Bullock’s to see her after she had returned from door, roommates testified that once the shopping. approximate- He left Bullock at unlocked, even when latched but blew ly p.m. evening. telephoned 8:30 He open. happened This when the outer hall- separate starting her three times at 11:00 way opened, door was gust and a of air p.m., phone. but no one answered the through apartment came to force the door open. stairway, Also found on the in a Keith Canaan and his brother Kevin area, pack common ciga- was a of “Kool” drinking were seen beer at a Chi Chi’s rettes January 4, with saliva under it. On day. Mexican restaurant earlier jewelry a number of items were re- only Kevin testified at trial that Keith had covered in nearby They Eastland Mall. about five dollars with him. After Kevin belonged to one of Lori Bullock’s room- p.m., left at about 10:00 Keith was seen mates. trying ten-speed bicycle to sell his red employees parking Chi Chi’s lot.

Keith days Canaan was arrested af- two ter the crime occurred. At the time of his At approximately p.m., 10:40 Natasha arrest, officers bag, Clark, Bullock’s, recovered a duffel upstairs neighbor an clothing, comb, package ciga- of “Kool” person heard a knock at her door. The at Canaan, pers. Gilmore did hear Keith tell Kevin door, asked later identified as pants say a get across the hall rid of some of his girls knew when the if she times, got get leaned home. He then number of “I’ve out be at would having if she was later testified at trial that doorway and asked here.” Kevin the door. Clark Mrs. Clark closed Keith told him he had killed a “biker” party. company night remarked those Po- did have the Silver Dollar bar before. indicate, Bates’ brother is present employee that “Norman lice records and an explained at trial testified, the door.” She outside no one killed there the bar phrase he looked she used because night. nervous, fidgeted with his strange, was strange “had a cigarette package, and I knocked, The second time he Matt look.” presented appeal The first issue on door, person to the Clark went 35-50-2-9, provides is whether IC which bicycle his for $30. to sell Clark offered to make recommendation said, “Just shut the Canaan then refused. sentencing judge, leaving the trial and a number of door.” Clarks damn option to follow or not follow the guests Canaan knocked their testified recommendation, is an unconstitutional vio proceeded then across the hall and the door process rights. Ca lation Canaan’s due floor, he was heard to first where to the one, 9(e): language naan claims the of § another door. Lori Bullock’s knock on situation, places jury, fact-finding in a the first floor. apartment was located on role, contrary to the advisory approximately p.m. 10:45 when Ca- It was process; mandates due constitutional went downstairs. naan two, impact impor diminishes evening, Later that Canaan seen fact-finding jury jury because the tance Bennigan’s, a located near the restaurant make decision knows it does not the final Mall. The time indicated on his Eastland defendant or dies. of whether the lives a.m., 12:45 he had been there and bill gives any authority if for his little Canaan approximately thirty-five forty-five position and claims this is an issue of first getting minutes the bill. Still later before impression systems, and federal all state Pfeiffer, evening met Kirk Canaan including contrary, To the the Indiana’s. the went called Silver and the two to bar discussed Supreme United States Court has back, On the Canaan offered Dollar. drive approved capital sentencing statutes and gas He counted his mon- money. Pfeiffer stat nearly are identical Indiana’s which

ey off in twenties and had at least $100. utory scheme. approximately 4:00 a.m. Canaan was At Supreme re Court The United States Jerry’s seen at Restaurant Evansville. three but approved and different viewed Stoner, waitress, asked a Charlotte very of the use of similar methods he could remove some blood stains how judge in by jury and the trial decision led her to from his shirt. Canaan believe penalty. v. imposing death In Proffitt previous injury. was from a the blood 2960, 242, (1976), Florida 428 U.S. 96 S.Ct. before, days Canaan had come into the few 913, (1976), denied 429 U.S. 49 L.Ed.2d reh. restaurant, cut and his hands bleed- same 158, 875, 198, 97 50 L.Ed.2d the Court S.Ct. ing. testified, however, Stoner that he was statutory approved reviewed and Florida’s wearing grey shirt not same af Indiana’s statute is fashioned scheme. previous occasion. provisions of the Florida statutes. ter following a friend, provide Finally, Keith Those statutes that and Kevin Canaan’s murder, Gilmore, finding first guilty degree on the testified that after- Mark and 29, separate presentence hearing held of December 1985 both Canaan is noon and jury eight aggravating at his home. The brothers considers brothers were specified policemen standing mitigating outside seven circumstances noticed Kevin’s advisory ver and returns an nearby apartment. They signs showed statutes talking in began judge whis- trial dict as to the sentence. The nervousness 900 sentence; questions yes, the actual he also these is the death

determines sentence miti weighs statutory aggravating imposed. jury is If the finds the answer to imposes If he gating circumstances. no, questions is a sentence of sentence, judge death must set forth in imprisonment life results. Death sen- writing findings his fact which state suffi given expedited ap- tences are review on statutory aggravating cient circumstances Hence, peal. jury in the Texas scheme outweighed by statutory exist and are upon must find certain facts exist and an mitigating circumstances. A death sen finding required affirmative on all of the automatically by tence is also reviewed facts, judgment imposing is entered In Supreme Gregg Court of Florida. v. penalty. death (1976), 153, 2909, Georgia U.S. S.Ct. Proffitt, Supreme recog- In Court 859, (1976), 49 L.Ed.2d reh. denied 429 U.S. nized the difference between the Florida 875, 197, 158, 97 S.Ct. 50 L.Ed.2d the Unit Georgia schemes: Supreme approved ed States Court Geor The basic difference between the Flor gia’s provided presen- scheme system Georgia system ida is following hearing a determination tence that in Florida the sentence is deter judge guilt is conducted either before by judge mined the trial by rather than mitigating aggravating jury which hears jury. pointed This Court has out ten They must find at least one of evidence. jury sentencing capital in a case specified aggravating circumstances exists perform important can societal func beyond a reasonable doubt and must so tion, Illinois, Witherspoon v. 391 U.S. designate writing. judge this in makes 510, 519 n. 15 S.Ct. 1775 n. [88 this determination if it is tried before the 20 L.Ed.2d but it has never 776] court and the makes the determination suggested jury sentencing is consti jury, if judge tried before a and here the is tutionally required. appear And it would jury’s bound recommended sentence. judicial sentencing lead, if Supreme Georgia Court automatical anything, greater consistency to even ly reviews death sentence. imposition at the trial court level of Jurek Texas capital punishment, since a trial S.Ct. 49 L.Ed.2d reh. denied experienced sentencing more in than a 875, 198, 429 U.S. 97 S.Ct. 50 jury, and therefore is im better able to 158, Supreme approved L.Ed.2d the Court pose sentences similar to imposed those system the Texas which enumerates five analogous in cases. specific aggravating circumstances, one of The capital-sentencing proce Florida in impose which must exist order to the dures thus seek to assure that the death penalty. presentence hearing death is penalty imposed will not be in an arbi which, jury, held before the in addition to trary capricious Moreover, manner. finding aggravating at least one circum any to the extent that risk to the con existed, specific stance must also answer exists, trary by it is minimized Florida’s 1) questions: whether the defendant’s con appellate system, review under which the duct which the caused death was commit aggravating evidence of the mitigat and deliberately ted the reasonable ing circumstances is reviewed and re expectation that the death of the deceased weighed by Supreme the Court of Florida result; 2) or another would whether there independently “to determine whether the probability is a the defendant would com imposition penalty of the ultimate is war mit criminal acts of violence would State, 481, ranted.” Songer v. 322 So.2d continuing constitute a society; threat ([Fla.] 1975). 484 See also Sullivan v. 3) evidence, by if raised the whether State, 632, 1974). 303 ([Fla.] So.2d 637 the killing defendant’s conduct in the de response Proffitt, 252-53, ceased was in unreasonable to the 428 U.S. at 96 S.Ct. at provocation, 2966-67, if any, by (footnotes the deceased. If the 49 L.Ed.2d at 922-23 jury the proved beyond omitted). finds State has Court further con- Proffitt reasonable doubt the answer to each of cluded:

901 court, sentencing unlike a jury appellate given judge The directions sufficiently wholly the are ill-suited evaluate jury, the Florida statute the various precise to enable in in- clear and death the first appropriateness of be aggravating circumstances stance. As against mitigating ones. weighed the 330, 2640, Id. at 105 S.Ct. at 86 L.Ed.2d at result, sentencing dis- court’s the trial 240. The Court found the sug- uncorrected by sys- guided and channeled cretion is gestion that the jury’s responsibility any for of on the circumstances tem focuses ultimate determination of death will rest individual homicide and each individual presented danger with others the jury deciding the death in whether defendant might choose to importance minimize the imposed. penalty is to be its role. 2969, at 258, 49 L.Ed.2d at 96 S.Ct. Id. in Clearly, Supreme Court Caldwell jury’s not find that the nature did 1985, Supreme In States United advisory responsibility Eighth violated the presented jury of a issue Court Rather, it Amendment to the Constitution. taking lightly imposing responsibility its jury invited the found the State’s conduct penalty prosecuting where the the death responsibility lightly its take its since argument, encouraged attorney, his final judgment anyway. would final Ca- not be Mississippi jury to do so. Caldwell contend, no naan does not and there is (1985), 472 S.Ct. U.S. here, even an inference showing there was proceeding, 231. In a L.Ed.2d bifurcated improper or influence exert- conduct closing argu lawyers, their Caldwell’s give to a jury which would rise ed on the stage, sentencing ment at referred they properly and sin- finding that did not youth, family background, and petitioner’s this case. cerely impose death general as to character poverty, well findings that written jury to show court made They evidence. asked The trial mercy, emphasizing jury proven beyond reasonable had the State circum- gravity responsibility aggravating confront the existence doubt calling response, any mitigating death. In outweighed another’s stances prosecutor urged jury justified not to view and therefore circumstances determining finally peti- itself as whether penalty. imposition of death tioner would sentence die because death Spaziano v. Florida by the for correctness would reviewed L.Ed.2d 104 S.Ct. Mississippi evenly di- Supreme Court. An Supreme Court reviewed United States Supreme Mississippi vided Court affirmed life recommended case which imposition the conviction and the trial instead imprisonment penalty. Supreme death The United States reviewing In Spaziano death. sentenced imposition found the of the Court that scheme, which, like statutory Florida’s sentence a of the death was violation Indiana’s, this, Supreme permits the Court Eighth of the States Amendment United if can legislature that the allow found constitutionally Constitution held it is capital determine a issue uncoun- judge to a death on a impermissible to rest sentence allowing by jury, there is no bar to seled by a made sentencer who determination the judge to determine the issue with responsibility has been led to believe function, still of the can benefit which determining appropriateness of the for things, of the among other voice The defendant’s death rests elsewhere. may community. “If a be vested stated: Court imposing for responsibility with sole “delegation” sentencing responsi- The penalty, nothing there is con then bility prosecutor [death] that encour- here stitutionally wrong judge’s exer simply aged postpone thus not would receiving after cising responsibility that fair right defendant’s to a determination 465, 104 of the death; jury.” the advice Id. at S.Ct. appropriateness his rath- 82 L.Ed.2d at 356. right, him of for deprive er it would criminal on Enhancement for habitual presents no reversible error ment. Canaan sup- facts those issue. different from this based imposition porting penalty. of the death II addition, practically speaking, is no there address an ha- way The issue we could be sentenced as second jeopardy rights (to double and be years) Canaan’s a term of is whether bitual offender charged with violated when he was penalty. Indeed, although were death given the at the same being offender, habitual offender he to be an he was found habitual penalty sought the death time State was not sentenced on that. The situation claims his against him. Canaan also not, argues, as Canaan was that the State right against cruel and Eighth Amendment penalty decide which most could not was violated, punishment but he was unusual rather, appropriate; the State authority argue cite this claim. does not opinion if re- the death were Therefore, that issue need not we address appeal or appropriate versed on not found (1985), Ind., 474 Wagner here. v. State jury, he would receive an enhanced N.E.2d 486. having sentence for committed heinous having crime after been several convicted Jeopardy The Double Clause previous times for felonies. is no There Fifth Amendment to the States Con United presented error here. provides person shall stitution that no “be subject for the same offense be twice jeopardy

put in of life or limb.” Ill embody Clause has held to been address We next Canaan’s contention the separate prohibitions: three but related admitting pack trial court erred in (1) a rule reprosecution which bars a for cigarettes, pack showing “Kool” a slide (2) acquittal; same offense after found, as it was under- saliva found barring reprosecution rule for the same it, neath into evidence. Canaan claims and; (3) conviction, after offense a rule irrelevant, prejudice exhibits were barring multiple punishment for outweighed to him probative far their val- same offense. North Carolina ue. Pearce, (1969) 89 S.Ct. cigarette package and saliva were barring 23 L.Ed.2d 656. The rules stairway leading found on the reprosecution multiple punishment from building, first floor where Bullock’s may related in are that a defendant reprosecuted located, floor, apartment be a second trial for the to the second may apartment same nor twice sen the Clarks’ was located. where offense single tenced the same people Several used the stairway eve- offense proceeding. ning Bullock was killed. At one trial wit- ness, Randy Dunn, testified he saw 532, 534, Elmore v. State 269 Ind. package leaving and saliva after N.E.2d party Clark’s at approximately 12:30 a.m. challenge Canaan bases his on the third prohibition, multiple punishments that of presented Evidence at trial showed same points for the offense. He out that type the saliva came from a A secretor. penalty death both the offend- habitual type A secretor is one whose saliva and er determination are sentence enhance- body fluids contain a water-soluble ments, and claims that he cannot be faced antigens form group of of the A blood two with sentence for the enhancements erythrocytes, found or mature red blood same crime. cells. Stedman’s Medioal DICTIONARY (4th 1976). jeopardy ed. rights protect cigarettes

Double defen- Two left multiple burning apartment dant from punishments. The of the night death and habitual offender deter- murder were determined to have on them mination are of type saliva A not, enhancements and do secretor. Canaan therefore, punish- constitute cumulative through testing was determined to be a According testimony, noodles. Officer Ford testified he was able type A secretor. fingerprints dry set to lift a of from a general population share of the 32% portion spaghetti of the box. These were characteristic. fingerprints. identified later as Canaan’s if, of light relevant Evidence is The officer how he testified transferred logically tends to general experience, it prints finger- the lifted to a card. Latent En disprove issue of fact. prove or some present are oils on the prints made from Ind., (1987), 5. It 506 N.E.2d gle v. State They skin. are invisible until “dusted” trial is accord that the court is well-settled powder or some substance which with ruling relevancy on the ed wide latitude shape ridges adheres to oil in the of the probative its value to determine of evidence fingers person skin on the who prejudicial impact. its Even vis a vis print. pattern lifted left The dust is relevant, only marginally evidence is where by placing transparent tape clear the trial court’s sound discretion it is within oil, dust which are removed from admissibility. v. to determine its Wallace they surface because are stuck to the ad- 445, 460, (1985), Ind., 486 N.E.2d State tape. tape hesive surface of the is 1010, 106 S.Ct. cert. denied against card, “sticky sealed then side” agree We 92 L.Ed.2d 723. on) (the print side is down. The officer evidence for the trial court that this was sticky further testified that once the side of consider. was found to be jury to card, applied lift is to the the adhesive testimony secretor, type A indicated pa- pulling cannot be removed without fidgeted door Canaan the Clarks’ at while per off the of the card. The officer surface cigarette package, and arrest with a when that an latent testified examination ed, packs carrying couple Canaan was had print card showed there been no such cigarettes. This of “Kool” evidence tends pulling significance off. The of this testi- only apart not to show Canaan was mony fingerprint is that stuck to building, apartment. ment in Bullock’s but originally it had exactly the card as been tes It also tended to corroborate the other tampered and could not have been with. timony placing him at of other witnesses possibili Canaan admits mere scene. find no error here. We tampering not ty of will render evidence non-fungible inadmissible. In the case of IV is if the custo goods, it sufficient chain of process he was Canaan claims denied due strongly suggests the dy whereabouts the trial court fin- when admitted certain Additionally, times. the exhibit all gerprint lifts into evidence. He attacks the subject evidence is to the chain of custo all custody foundation and chain of possesses If item dy rule. the offered may evidence and claims it have been tam- fairly unique and characteristics which are A pered large with or falsified. number of identifiable, readily and if the substance items, foodstuffs, personal including were relatively composed the item is apart- immediately found outside Bullock’s has impervious change, the trial court building and hav- ment were identified determining discretion in broad whether apartment ing come from the Bullock and testimony merely upon admit it the basis of occupied. large number her roommates in a question item is the and is one fingerprints of latent were lifted and substantially unchanged condition. Dier checked, including prints the food- from Ind., N.E.2d State apartment. found Offi- stuffs outside credibility and question then is one of cer Ford he and officer testified another admissibility. not of removed all of the and took foodstuffs Dier, police they them to lab where were officers found a visible prints. Among print photograph dusted for the were on a and took a items doorknob doorknob; packages photograph of meat showed frozen which had thawed of the the items, dripped print. sub blood over the other the visible Evidence was then including demonstrating lifting print spaghetti box of Red Cross mitted of the Although

in the instant same manner described claims court primary complaint case. is that Canaan’s parts certain admitted Canaan’s of state spaghetti photograph no was taken of the ment and he was having excluded from subsequently by box and it was discarded admitted, nothing remainder there is spa- police. The evidence showed record to substantiate this claim. As we in a ghetti appeared group photograph box stated, only have of evidence the con However, many of the items. the box of testimony versation was Erk’s he had ad by juices had thawed been soaked from the rights vised Canaan of his and Canaan had products meat and the officer testified it signed an advisement waiver. The State keep impossible would the box have been did not introduce evidence that statement decayed. because it have rotted and would subsequently taken; it was Canaan photograph There is evidence a of the no who to admit the statement. In print carton would have revealed a visible the statement Canaan where told he had dry portion police on the used offi- night crime, been the who he was fact, print. cers to lift Canaan’s In with, gave activities, the time his print officer testified the would have been excluding any possibility present he was at invisible until dusted and lifted in the man- Clearly scene the crime. the state testimony ner described above. The re- ments Canaan made hearsay. amounted to print vealed on that once was lifted They subject were not to cross-examination print possible card it was to read the since he did testify not trial. at Under compare prints it with known to be proper such circumstances it was for the testimony Canaan’s. The further showed trial court exclude it. Shelton v. State police print kept this the man- card in Ind., 743; 490 N.E.2d Marts v. prescribed keeping ner for pro- for exhibits (1982), Ind., State 432 N.E.2d 24. duction into evidence. There is evidence no Marts, Prentice, writing Justice for a unan tampered it was changed with or court, imous reasoned: “An obvious reason stated, manner. weAs have affected rule litigant is that a should not credibility not exhibit and its permitted to admissibility. credibility by We no enhance his therefore find error such in its Marts, admission into evidence. method.” at N.E.2d

V Defense counsel then claimed the type Although A secretor. Canaan, argument, rais- be from organizing his it heading type general population, common under one number of issues es a La- consistent Canaan’s. In addi- verdict motion. is also with the directed regarding tion, tried her a separate boyfriend issue Bullock’s to call as a ter he addresses evening starting at Because of times that sufficiency of the evidence. number p.m. but received 11:00 no approximately of directed ver- on issue determination same p.m., rest on the sufficiency will Bullock was alive at 9:00 dict and answer. standards, the same phone Hillsmyer. tested call from facts and be and received here. sets issues address both we will time or after the murder Some before occurred, A apartment was ransacked. crimi concedes that a Canaan from the large number of items were taken solely on cir may based nal conviction be apartment, including spaghetti. a box of v. State cumstantial evidence. Willard 602-03, Although fingerprint. (1980), Ind. 400 N.E.2d This bore Canaan’s apartment previous to the review we need he had been two appellate 160. On times, adequate testimony he not touch evidence indicates did find the circumstantial hypothesis anything reasonable kitchen area. every to overcome may innocence, only that inference but Hillsmyer shopping and had Bullock been reasonably from such evidence be drawn day murder. Lori had around v. supports jury’s findings. Hall shopping, purse left after but her was $200 N.E.2d 273 Ind. State empty police investiga- during the found reviewing sufficiency claims Kevin testified that earlier tion. Canaan reweigh we evidence appeal, on do not only evening had dollars Keith a few look credibility of witnesses. We pocket. later eve- in his Much the same to the only to that evidence most favorable having ning, after eaten a restaurant inferences to be verdict and reasonable bar, drinking in at least Ca- and been one is therefrom. If there substantial drawn quite a bit naan was heard to count out probative support value to evidence money, more over $100. verdict, it will disturbed. v. not be Alfaro next Keith and Kevin On the afternoon (1985), Ind., 670, 672. 478 N.E.2d State friend, Mark were the home of Canaan at Also, a motion for a directed verdict should lived Gilmore near Canaan. Gilmore. only is lack granted there a total where police officers outside When the men saw on essential and of evidence some element residence, Canaan decided the Canaan where the State has failed establish persuade him to Kevin able to leave. prima facie case. Maisonet State after dark. Canaan sent his brother leave Ind., 1052, 1054. 448 N.E.2d asked pack some clothes for him and destroy pair of dark trousers that he (A) told night before. Canaan had worn argues Canaan first the evidence fight previous gotten he had in a Kevin prove identity his was insufficient to at the Dollar. night and killed a biker Silver testi perpetrator of this crime. Witnesses however, showed, there were no Evidence that Keith came to their door fied Canaan evening had fights there no one and p.m. approximately 10:40 and killed. been bicycle his witnesses to sell These $30. reasonably inferred jury may Bullock. have were located one floor above Lori gained en- heard Ca this evidence that Canaan A number them saw and/or from apartment through an apartment naan knock the door trance Bullock’s door, apartment, apartment. hall Bullock’s ransacked the across the unlocked point fidgeting pack of at some encountered Bullock had been with a ciga repeatedly her a kitchen cigarettes. package of “Kool” stabbed leading identity presented knife. The evidence rettes was found on the stairs on this building. floor Near the the verdict the first sufficient sustain pack saliva, testing it to issue. showed

906

(B) The elements of criminal deviate conduct are stated in IC 35-42-4-2: evidence was Canaan next contends the to sustain the verdict on the person insufficient knowingly Sec. 2. A who or in- charge. contends the burglary Canaan ele- person causes tentionally per- another “building “breaking” ments of or form or sexual submit deviate conduct sufficiently proven. structure” were not when: there was no See IC 35-41-1-10. Because (1) person compelled by other is door, sign entry the outer of forced from force; force or imminent threat of door, only the bedroom he claims (2) person other is unaware that the conviction cannot stand. occurring; the conduct is or is “breaking” A established (3) person mentally other so is dis- slightest is used when even the force abled or deficient that consent to the gain entry: opening even an unauthorized given; cannot conduct unlocked door is sufficient. Trice v. State conduct, commits criminal deviate (1986),Ind., 490 N.E.2d 758-59. It is However, felony. Class B the offense is apart true door to the that here outer felony A if it by Class is committed signs entry, ment no showed of forced but using threatening use deadly or it is that the locks the door known did force, if it committed while armed with properly. not did work The deadbolt weapon, deadly or if it results in seri- well, habitually work and therefore Bullock injury person ous bodily left it The unlocked. lock in doorknob than a defendant. defective, change was so even in air pressure by opening caused the outer en Deviate sexual conduct is defined in IC tryway would door sometimes cause the 35-41-1-9: apartment “pop” open. door to Police offi Sec. 9. “Deviate conduct” sexual means cers testified when the deadbolt was involving: an act open not locked the door would “with a (1) organ person a sex of one good addition, signs shove.” there were person; mouth or anus of another or entry. apartment unauthorized was (2) penetration organ of the sex or ransacked, items, clothing, food and other person object. anus of household articles were all strewn over the apartment building. and outside the Lori IC attempt, 35-41-5-1 defines the crime of completely Bullock was naked when pertinent part, she as follows: was Her found. roommate testified Lori (a) person attempts A Sec. to commit slept never may nude. One infer when, acting a crime culpability re- from the fact towels were found near the quired crime, for commission of the stabbed, bed where she was that she was engages conduct that constitutes a getting either into or out the shower step substantial toward commission of when It high Canaan attacked her. is also An attempt crime. to commit a ly unlikely she would have answered the felony crime is a or misdemeanor of the only door nude dressed in towel. An same attempted. class the crime other factor which shows unauthorized en However, an attempt to commit murder try is that the door to Bullock’s bedroom felony. is a Class in. smashed determined specifically from challenges these facts that Canaan Keith Canaan broke building sufficiency and entered pen or structure the evidence on with in which Lori Bullock penetration requires lived. There etration. He states support finding. sufficient evidence to this manipulation sexual and that none existed here. In support argument, of his (C) (7th Cir.1984), cites Rowan Owens Canaan also claims the evidence is insuf- F.2d cert. denied ficient to sustain his for attempt- conviction 106 S.Ct. 90 L.Ed.2d a case ed criminal deviate involving conduct, conduct. criminal deviate not at- Q: any wound that canal unpersua- Was there argument find tempt. We you determine at all from what could establish not there The State need sive. your from examination? support a conviction penetration was No, was not. conduct. All A: there attempted criminal deviate necessary support the conviction Q: that is the vulva? What is beyond a prove is the State must here basically the ex- A:- The describes vulva Canaan, acting with reasonable doubt that internal lips ternal or the labia and the required for commission of culpability labia, opening colitoris and the [sic] crime, in engaged conduct that constituted vaginal of the orifice. commission of step substantial toward Q: part The would be of the vul- labia Accordingly, in- the crime. IC 35-41-5-1. va? prove penetration the State did not sofar as A: Correct. here of support the conviction FUR- NOTHING PROSECUTOR: conduct, not Rowan does deviate criminal BY THER EXAMINATION CROSS is that the argument apply. Canaan’s next STANDLEY, BARRY L. CO-COUN- beyond reason- to establish State failed SEL DEFENDANT FOR support requisite intent doubt the able XQ: got ... we’ve violation of So agree. We do not his conviction. knife but labia with the no violation patholo- is the sur- following of the vestibule which under testimony face of the labia. autopsy on Bull- gist performed the who body that the victim’s la- ock’s established A: Correct.

bia, organ, cut part of the female sex XQ: vagina. of the And no violation knife: by a Right. A: Q: What is the labia? in his brief evidence Canaan notes “[t]he part A: The labia ia vulva [sic] promiscuous stabbing of presented showed organs genital or is the external which in a body.” The knife thrusts were organs sex of the female. external originated pu- in the downward motion and Q: does it consist of? What evidence, body. From area of the this bic men from we find could infer basically laymens’ It is terms reasonable A: placement these and direction of lips is called the female what penetrate vagina thrusts an intent to genital organs, labia. jury itself. what Apparently Q: opening Does it the outer cover of at- concluded it convicted Canaan since vagina? Given tempted sexual conduct. deviate A: Yes. suggests substantial this evidence penetrated Q: Was victim’s labia canal, vaginal enter the steps taken to were knife? both sides with the contig- of three physical evidence Yes, it A: was. got attacker uous shows the knife wounds parts Q: Were there reason- attempt, least far in his at penetrat- organs female sex that were pen- man infer that some able could also you ed the knife wounds have etration, slight, had occurred. although also described? earlier, Bullock, not Additionally, as noted No, they not. A: were unclothed, to- sleeping the habit of Q: There were three different areas of this tally light found. nude when penetration had occurred? evidence, say cannot we Yes. A: opportunity had consider have Q: body? Did all of the wounds exit accept reject the inference either used to kill Lori Bull- knife entrance, Keith yes, they A: From this one penetrated organs her sexual ock did. contemplated by our manner statute. Q: pen- vaginal Was the canal itself etrated? It noted United States should be No, for the Circuit Appeals it was Court Seventh A: not. following prison stated the for the rest of his life or for a Rowan v. Owens Opinion: very long help its page protect 1189 of time and that will community. may protect It those on 35-42-4-2(b) point of section [the out, get the streets if he doesn’t ever but sexual precursor to the current deviate protect pris- it the other won’t inmates punish is not to sexual conduct statute] on ... as such there must still be mutilation ... (however

penetration slight) in a sexual OBJECTION, MR. STANDLEY: Your sense; and a cut on the outside of the requests Honor. The defendant a organ pen- sexual a female is not such hearing presence outside the etration. jury. Rowan, 752 F.2d at 1189. mistrial, The court denied the motion for points correctly

The State out the Rowan jury disregard but admonished the court relied on an earlier version of the objectionable comments. The con State reaching conduct in deviate sexual statute argument improper cedes was and that 35-41-1-2, in in its decision. IC effect (11th Cir.1983), Hance v. Zant 696 F.2d 1978, defined deviate sexual conduct as be- 940, (1983), 1210, cert. denied 463 U.S. 103 ing gratification involving “an act of sexual 3544, 1393, S.Ct. 77 L.Ed.2d held it was organ person a sex of one and the mouth or improper urge consideration for the fu person.” anus of another The statute was safety ture of other inmates as a factor in revised, 35-41-1-9, subsequently and IC capital sentencing. It should be noted that applicable situation, present which is proposition expressly this by overruled longer requires no the conduct to be an act Appeals 11th Circuit Court of in gratification. Presumably of sexual this (11th Cir.1985) (en banc), Kemp Brooks v. legislative a prevailing reaction to the 1383, 1398-99, 1411, 762 F.2d vacated on rape types attitude that and other of sexual (1986), 1016, grounds 106 passion attacks are not crimes of or sexual 3325, S.Ct. 92 L.Ed.2d 732. Brooks held rather, gratification, but crimes of violence. although arguments such are dramat specifically The Rowan court stated that ic, they directly are relevant to the consid effect, on the penetration based statute eration of whether a defendant would re (sexual gratification) a sexual sense Brooks, society. main a threat to 762 F.2d must have ultimately prove occurred to de- Nevertheless, at 1411. impor “it is most longer viate sexual conduct. This is no sentencing phase tant that the of the trial required. by passion, not be influenced prejudice, or arbitrary a man’s any other factor. With foregoing From the we conclude that the stake, play prosecutor should not on life at trial court denying did not err in Canaan’s passions Hance, jury.” 696 F.2d motion directed verdict on these is- (citation omitted). at 951 sues. However, every not error which VII party occurs entitles a to have a mistrial argues the trial court erred in declared. The trial court has broad discre failing grant during a mistrial penal- tion in determining whether to declare a ty phase of the trial. He bases this claim mistrial, and ordinarily prerogative upon prosecutor the fact the improp- made only declare one will be exercised as a last during er argument. comments his words, resort. In other the circumstances question statements are as follows: must be such that the trial cannot continue

Protection, you the second subjecting reason have grave without the defendant to for sentences. community peril Protect grievous error. Carman v. State protect Only (1979), 76, our fellow citizens. 78-79, 344, 272 Ind. 396 N.E.2d penalty death can do Only this case. upon finding 346. of abuse of dis The death will insure the commu- cretion will the trial court be reversed. nity protected, (1986), Ind., insure that the other Perrault v. State 490 N.E.2d people well, you say keep 322, can him in 324. —

909 Ind., disturb based on substantial evi (1986), 497 a verdict Hensley v. State Alfaro, probative dence value. the issue this Court addressed N.E.2d To at prove of N.E.2d at 672. defendant misconduct and denial prosecutorial crime, tempted certain response to al to commit a made in mistrial motions 1) acted reviewing charge “In State must show: the defendant leged misconduct. crime, intent misconduct, specific with a to commit the Court first determines 2) fact, engaged he in an act was, overt misconduct whether there step to then whether which constitutes substantial prosecutor, and considers crime. wards the commission of the Zicke under all the circumstanc that misconduct 270 Ind. position in a placed es the defendant State foose N.E.2d 510. grave peril have 497 N.E.2d at subjected.” Hensley, been The court instructed the citing Maldonado v. State lesser included offense 492, 498-99, 843, Ind. 355 N.E.2d This is if proper criminal conduct. deviate attorney cut In this case the defense probative there of from is evidence value argument. the prosecutor’s short jury properly could find the de which the repeat the attempt not to prosecutor did offense. guilty fendant of such an Good statements, stray uninterrupted and did 177, (1980), 170, paster 273 Ind. v. State prosecutor ground as the into forbidden did 1239, 402 1243. Intent to commit a N.E.2d prosecutor There the went on in Hance. felony may inferred from the surround tirade, any used something to a close ing of a crime. v. circumstances White cliches, including his improper of number Ind., 725, (1986), 727. 495 N.E.2d State family, safety of of fear for the his own took a Whether the defendant substantial the prisoners, spoke and even Viet- other step committing the crime is a towards Clearly, War. no admonishment nam question jury fact for the to determine. there. But have cured error would (1986),Ind., 420, 501 Dukes N.E.2d v. State here, properly jury the court instructed 421. disregard improper to comment. case is sufficient evi In this there “grave determining In whether dence show Canaan took substantial to resulted, probable peril” we look to the step committing criminal deviate towards on persuasive effect of misconduct necessary specific intent. conduct with decision, jury’s degree improprie not the argues the wounds to the The State Maldonado, 265 ty of the conduct. Ind. clearly and neck allow victim’s chest 499, grave at 848. find no N.E.2d We kill to Lori Bull inference intended Canaan peril under these circumstances. trial ock, have been allowed denying its in court did not abuse discretion repeated to external to infer from stabs the motion for mistrial. organ he portion sex female vagina. her attempted penetrate We VIII repeated knife agree. These thrusts argues court Canaan next the trial erred also to constitute genital area are sufficient giving jury an on instruction at- step prove at requisite substantial He tempted criminal deviate conduct. con- tempt. giving not err in The trial court did justify is tends the evidence insufficient on of the lesser included instruction specifically, giving instruction. More con fense of criminal deviate challenges the evidence on the elements duct. specific a substantial intent whether step to commit the crime was taken. IX. again The final issue which we address

Once we note that deter evidence, sufficiency failing trial erred mining the of the this whether the court ten- reweigh give three instructions which Canaan Court does not evidence court. credibility We will not dered to the witnesses. subject. an in on that determining whether No elaboration of it can refused, Court, properly Taylor make it clearer. struction was v. State (1981), Ind., 1231, 1234, review, 1) citing whether the N.E.2d must consider: 560, correctly Bridgewater v. State 153 Ind. tendered instruction stated the 2) 55 N.E. 739. The in law; tendered there was whether evidence instruction; proper struction was not a statement of the support giving record to trial court did law and the not err re 3) ten whether substance fusing give it. in dered instruction was covered given. structions McKean State bases his next claim of error on Ind., review 500 N.E.2d 1186. On we No. Instructions 5 and No. tendered dur- are bound to consider the instructions as ing trial, phase of the which (1986), Ind., whole. Roland v. State 501 read as follows: 1034, 1040. The decision as to what N.E.2d Defendant’s Instruction No. 5 give largely instructions to lies within charge you I nothing that there is trial court’s discretion. v. State Smith suggest would that the decision afford (1987), Ind., 506 N.E.2d mercy individual defendant violates 2,No. tendered Defendant’s Instruction the Constitution. during phase the habitual offender trial, reads as follows: Defendant’s Instruction No. 6 This is a criminal action and the Constitu- determining wether to [sic] tion of the State of Indiana makes the penalty recommend the death in this law, jury judges the as well as of the you cause your should look to own back- actions, fact[s], in criminal the and in- ground, experience, beliefs and convic- advisory structions the are Court tions, your feelings concerning as well as only. penalty deciding the death in whether or this, however, you It is not meant that not to recommend such a sentence this may willfully arbitrarily disregard and examining your case. If after own back- law, you it means but that should ground, experience and beliefs concern- honestly, justly impartially judge and ing penalty, you the death feel that the law as it exists. penalty given death should not be to the your duty It to determine the law any reason, you Defendant herein for correctly. [Emphasis added.] may elect not to recommend the death During trial, phase habitual penalty in this case. jury court in construing instructed that Canaan claims give the court’s failure to any instruction, they one should consider it these instructions is a failure to inform the with all given. other instructions The jury constitutionally of their mandated court jury, also instructed the at the con- role, right and he was therefore denied his guilt clusion of the phase, that it was to process to due under the law. These in- testimony determine the facts from the structions were tendered and refused dur- instructions, to determine the law from the ing penalty phase. accordingly. find its verdict At this judge jury time the instructed the As both the State and Canaan according provisions to the in IC 35-50-2- point out, Article I Section 19 of the Indiana’s death statute. He Indiana provides: Constitution “In all crim mitigating stated that addition to the whatever, inal jury cases shall have the named, jury circumstances he could right to determine the law and the facts.” “any consider appro- other circumstances however, From this it does not follow priate for jury consideration.” The was judge’s advisory instructions are only. instructed that guilty verdict does not We have said that when the court informs itself constitute aggravating an circum- jury they right have the to stance, determine that the mitigating circumstances facts, the law and the only states the only cited were some of those to be con- legal proposition necessary to be laid sentence, down sidered in recommending a refusing tendered instruc- support tion Canaan’s any one sufficient was jury against death. The tions. recommendation should not limit considera- also told it

was Having found no error after con specific but only those factors tion raises, sidering all of the issues Canaan we appropriate look relating the must now examine whether death sen circumstances factors and making appropriate court told in this case. trial a decision. The tence is The case ag- mitigating outweighed that if jury findings judge made written which stated circumstances, they may not rec- gravating proved beyond Keith B. Canaan had been sentence. ommend death doubt to have murdered Lori reasonable from prohibiting juries An instruction on or December 1985 to Bullock about sentencing basing their decisions judge found December also trial, and presented factors not at the committing her while Canaan murdered trial, at does irrelevant to the issues burglary deviate sexual con not violate the United States Constitu- duct. He added that Canaan also purpose useful tion. It serves proven to be an habitual offender. confining imposition of jury’s judge through possible read each by cautioning against it death sentence mitigating provided in 35- circumstance IC factors, on extraneous emotional reliance 50-2-9, and in this found none case. He which, think, likely we would be far more significant prior history find a did criminal against capital defen- to turn because Canaan had been convicted of five than him. And to the extent dant for felonies. The prior found Canaan helps limit the instruction not under extreme emotional or mental intro- jury’s consideration matters crime, disturbance the time of it, fosters the duced evidence before it no of consent on found evidence Bullock's reliability Eighth “need Amendment’s only part, and no evidence Canaan was that the in the determination death is participation accomplice whose was rela- specific in appropriate punishment Further, he tively minor. found no evi- Indeed, by limiting jury’s sen- case.” the the he acted under domination dence tencing to evi- considerations record person, his un- capacity another or that to dence, the avail- State also ensures the criminality the of his or derstand conduct review, ability meaningful judicial an- his with to conform conduct accordance safeguard improves the relia- other that substantially impaired law was due to the process. bility sentencing of the disease, defect, or The mental intoxication. 538, (1987), v. Brown California miti- found no circumstances to judge 840, 934, 107 S.Ct. 93 L.Ed.2d 941 criminality of Canaan’s actions. gate the (citations omitted). aggravating the He found circumstances requires The Indiana statute mitigating, properly the and outweighed he proved to exist find the State jury’s recommendation and considered aggravating of at one circum ence least presen- information contained beyond a reasonable doubt and stance found, report. on The based tence against mitigating weigh aggravating law, knowledge and of the his of Canaan exist. statute circumstances which Our intentionally violated the law that Canaan protects capital adequately de therefore conform not motivated to his conduct while right fendant’s to be sentenced in a manner society requires. which He to standards freakish, capri arbitrary, is not or which punishment proper for Ca- concluded Ind., 460 cious. Resnover v. State death naan was electrocution. 922, 928, (1984), 469 N.E.2d cert. denied supports judge’s The record conclu- 83 L.Ed.2d 160. U.S. S.Ct. Bullock, find sion that Canaan murdered Lori Based on the we the trial court above attempted jury during burglarized apartment, her and properly instructed the the trial subsequent phases deviancy. trial. criminal It also of the acts of sexual find the discre- him to habitual offender. We We court did abuse its shows be an death or now hold that some force effort to overcome or remove therefore find and need under Indiana statutes a barrier. While there not be penalty provided imposed rupturing breaking entry arbitrarily capriciously actual or was not upon appro- way, showing there must be a that is reasonable and force Canaan and used, slight, gain entry. priate was however in his case. v. State 272 Ind. Willard The is affirmed and this case trial court N.E.2d Here there was no such evi for the to set a court remanded order appellant dence. The that evidence showed date for execution. apartment knocked door and he apartment. was There was also C.J., J., SHEPARD, GIVAN, apartment evidence that door would concur. open through application on occasion J., DeBRULER, concurs dissents However, slight force. this does not con separate in which opinion applied any evidence appellant stitute DICKSON, J., concurs. gain force unauthorized entrance. Ho DeBRULER, Justice, concurring and dis- ward, 433 N.E.2d 753. senting. it only necessary prove While was sepa- Appellant convicted of three stands attempted criminal conduct deviate and not offenses, namely, the of Lori rate murder completed crime of criminal deviate Bullock, apart- burglary Bullock’s conduct, the attempt pen- evidence of an ment, attempt and an to commit deviate organ etrate sex victim with upon person. conduct Appellant Bullock’s knife also insufficient. There were stands sentenced to the death un- twenty-two body, some stab wounds to the 35-50-2-9(b)(l) upon der the in- I.C. based many of which sufficient were alone killing tentional of Bullock while commit- pierced. cause death. The heart ting burglary attempt- the said and the said throat was cut several times. There were Appellant ed deviate conduct. claims on cutting multiple additional wounds to the appeal tending that the evidence to show legs. pathologist arms testified that he entered apartment, broke and that was able to discern from his exami- tending to show that he body nation all wounds were penetrate organ the sex victim flurry inflicted lasted a matter stabbing her support is insufficient to large gaping of minutes. There awas jury guilty of burglary verdicts of and at- pubic wound above pubic area tempted conduct, deviate recom- through bone which the knife entered sev- death, mendation of judge’s sen- times, eral and was deflected downward tence of death. This claim is sound. the pubic bone so as to cut the external The knife vagina labia. did not enter the imposi- conviction crime or the covering or the area beneath the of a upon tion death sentence based This labia. evidence shows no more contemporaneous than commission of one an undifferentiated criminal state separate of mind crimes enumerated 35-50- I.C. contemporaneous homicidal conduct 2-9(b)(l) if appeal cannot stand on person at the directed as whole. It does support evidence in of it is insufficient. penetrate attempt not show an the sex evidence, Either must be set aside if the organ knife, of the victim with the it as weighing determining ques- without contemplated in the criminal deviate con- credibility, probative tions of lacks value 35-42-4-21; duct statutes. I.C. I.C. 35-41- from which a reasonable trier of fact could 1-9. guilt beyond infer a reasonable doubt. Ho- (1982),Ind., v.

ward State 433 N.E.2d 753. The conviction for murder should be af- prove To burglary, the firmed, State must show however the convictions for burgla- breaking entering occurred. I.C. 35- ry attempted deviate sexual conduct 43-1-4. a breaking entering Proof of should be reversed because the lack of requires application evidence of the basis, proof. like sufficient On the sen- since it is vacated should be tence of death proof upon well insufficient

based burglary and

contemporaneous conduct, elements of essential both

deviate warranting circumstance aggravating the cause penalty, and

the death upon years for a sentence

remanded

murder conviction. J.,

DICKSON, concurs. PERRY,

Terry Appellant, L. Indiana, Appellee.

STATE

No. 54S00-8702-CR-205.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

July 31, 1989. notes officer’s from this conversation were Canaan claims the trial court erred filed in record of refusing the cause and testimony police to admit there officer on fore these notes regarding pursuant cross-examination were admissible exculpatory part of a he statement had to the exception. business records There is police. made to Officer Erk testi- Donald no police merit this contention. The fied generally steps as to he and other officer’s notes do change their charac try officers took to locate Canaan when regard admissibility ter with merely be suspect he became murder. Bullock’s they police cause are filed in the records. Canaan was arrested and Erk Officer court properly trial excluded this testi spoke briefly to him police station. mony. Erk testified and another officer talked to Canaan with a third present, officer ad- VI rights, vised him of his signed and Canaan presented Canaan contends the evidence an advisement waiver. That the ex- at trial was pri- insufficient to establish a tent of Officer Erk’s testimony direct ma case facie He challenges murder. examination. Defense counsel then asked the court’s failure grant his motion Officer for a Erk: “After that Mr. Canaan was asked directed verdict at the doing what he was end Saturday on the State’s night question, argues December, case. He 28th of much because was he not?” The circumstantial, court sustained the evidence was he was erro- objection State’s question. to this neously convicted.

Case Details

Case Name: Canaan v. State

Court Name: Indiana Supreme Court

Date Published: Jul 28, 1989

Citation: 541 N.E.2d 894

Docket Number: 82S00-8705-CR-521

Court Abbreviation: Ind.