Martinez Chavez v. State

CHAVEZ, Appellant MARTINEZ Eladio

(Defendant Below), Indiana, Appellee

STATE (Plaintiff Below).

No. 1085S426.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

March Defender, Carpenter,

Susan K. Public Flores, Tuke, Deputy M.E. Hector L. Public Defenders, appellant. Indianapolis, Gen., Pearson, Atty. Joseph N. Linley E. Gen., Stevenson, Deputy Atty. Indianapo- lis, appellee.

SHEPARD, Chief Justice. question in this case is principal justified in trial whether jury’s overriding Appellant Eladio Chavez and Martinez Reynaldo tried before a Rondon were murder, guilty and found 35-42-1-1(1) (Burns Repl.), and felo- 35-42-1-1(2) (Burns murder, ny Ind.Code § hearing, sentencing After jury recommended the death for Martinez Chavez. for Rondon but not court noted the recommen- trial for Mar- dation him death tinez but sentenced Chavez anyway. trial established that Copeland, girlfriend, Eva over-

Rondon's Spanish between Ron- heard a discussion don Martinez She understood and Chavez. enough the two Spanish surmise that planning Francisco Alar- men to rob Copeland con. asked Rondon him. caught do if Alarcon what he would kill him. Martinez Rondon said would “loco,” meaning said Rondon was Chavez crazy. Am- arranged a bracelet inscribed with name

Rondon to have Everette Frances himself military dog iotte tags drive Alarcon for Francis- place house eve- near Alarcon’s on the Alarcon. also key co Police found the 10,1984. ning testified of October Amiotte safety deposit Alarcon’s box. stayed that he the car while Rondon Overriding Jury I. Recommendation up the street and Martinez Chavez walked An accept Indiana court need not twenty corner. minutes around the About jury’s either recommendation for or alone. later Martinez returned against penalty. capital The sen said that looked Amiotte Martinez Chavez tencing provides, “The statute court is not “like Mar- nervous and smelled death.” jury’s bound recommendation.” car some- saying tinez Chavez entered the (Burns 35-50-2-9 1985 thing Spanish took to which Amiotte question “stupid Reynaldo.” case is the standard mean overriding must met to justify which a away Cha- Amiotte drove with Martinez jury’s death. buy stopped gas vez at a station to inside, cigarettes. While question pro Our review of this spotted walking Rondon down the street. Constitution, from Indiana ceeds which carrying a Rondon was windbreaker have, provides: “The shall shopping wrapped around a double-handled cases, appeals power in all of criminal bag. told two men that the car Rondon to review revise sentence im led driving down and he had been broke 7, particu Art. posed.” Ind.Const. 4.§ green car them its location. The was a to lar, imposition this Court must review the be- Pontiac which the State established death determine if the of a sentence of longed to Alarcon. appropriate offender and morning, Copeland Rondon The next saw his crime. v. Van Cleave State called him and riding his bike. She — 356, denied, 517 N.E.2d cert. U.S. night been asked him where he had 819, (1989). -, 102 808 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. Rondon nervous. before. became Appellate Although Indiana Rules for put knives to her. She them handed two say reviewing a Review of Sentences purse hid them in the trunk her and later a court will not revise sentence unless no of her car. person could find such sentence day, next door That same the victim’s case, capital those rules appropriate, in a suspicious neighbor noticed of a number guideposts appel for our “stand more as circumstances, including the absence pillars sup review than as immovable late car, and became concerned. Alarcon’s Spranger a v. porting sentence decision.” neighbor tapped on the window When the 931, 2, (1986),Ind., 498 947 n. N.E.2d State responded, no one house and Alarcon’s 1965, denied, 1033, U.S. 107 S.Ct. police. police arrived he called the (1987). 95 L.Ed.2d 536 room, living the house. In the entered has on one occasion affirmed This Court end of they pillows at one saw that four a trial court’s decision to override had on them and the couch blood lay impose glass a bottle be- pieces jury’s from brown recommendation and (1983),Ind., coffee table. tween the couch and the v. Schiro leading to police a of blood observed trail body they There found bathroom. L.Ed.2d Alarcon; fifteen he had been stabbed Schiro, reason believe the trial court had times. into been recom that the had tricked penalty. The mending against the death turned A residence search Rondon’s jurors tried to delude the defendant had money in up a sock with blood-stained dark mentally unstable thinking into he was money shopping bag with more it and a presence. rocking forth in their back and bag contained jewelry. The also and some case, 451 N.E.2d at 1059.1 In this there is S.Ct. L.Ed.2d at 356. On occasion, no that Martinez Chavez misled Rehnquist another Justice termed jury through his actions at protection” a “crucial Tedder standard Thus, sentencing. dispose does not Schiro capital punishment of Florida’s scheme. of this case. Florida, 432 U.S. Dobbert 2290, 2299, 357-358 Thirty thirty-seven states (1977). Today adopt we a similar stan- give vide for the the life-or- solely jury. Of the dard.2 death decision Florida, remaining states Ala seven juries pen The role of in Indiana’s death bama and Indiana allow a to override alty proceedings ais critical one. While death. jury’s recommendation Assembly has authorized a tri General Florida, 447, Spaziano & al a jury’s override recommenda n. n. 3164 & tion, consideration of the recommen & The Florida n. 9 Su simple entry dation cannot amount to preme following stan Court has set noting its existence. v. Williams dard: Ind., (1988), 525 N.E.2d 1238. This Court of In order to sustain a sentence death regards jury the recommendation of the as following life, jury of a recommendation very “a valuable contribution to the suggesting facts a sentence of death the cess, repre group in that it comes from a convincing be so clear and that should peers, sentative the defendant’s who are virtually person dif- no could reasonable reflect, collectively, likely to the standards fer. community.” of the Brewer v. State (Fla. State, 908, 322 910 Tedder v. So.2d 338, 373, 889, 275 Ind. 1975). high court not Florida has hesi 909, 1122, denied, 458 102 cert. U.S. S.Ct. derogates if tated to a trial court reverse 3510, (1982). 73 L.Ed.2d 1384 The United See, e.g., jury’s role. Richardson v. Supreme recognized, Court has “the States (Fla.1983); State, 1091 Cannady 437 So.2d punishment capital may that be decision State, (Fla.1983). It 723 has 427 So.2d appropriate sanction in extreme cases trial court’s also affirmed a decision to expression community’s is an of the belief against the jury’s override recommendation griev that certain crimes are themselves so State, E.g., Spaziano v. 433 So.2d death. humanity only ous an affront to that the (Fla.1983). 508 may response penalty adequate be Supreme The United States Court has 153, 428 Gregg Georgia, death.” U.S. upheld Supreme Court’s deci the Florida 184, 2909, 2930, 96 S.Ct. despite impose penalty sion to death (1976). Although 880-881 the trial court is against Spa it. jury’s recommendation sentence, of the it is bound final arbiter Florida, 447, 104 ziano v. S.Ct. its decision on the same standards make (1984). 82 L.Ed.2d 340 The Court 35-50-2-9(e), by jury, used Ind.Code § Supreme ap that the Florida Court noted jury’s and it should heed the recommenda plied rigorous in such a standard review today develop stan tion. The task is to a upon and that that cases based Tedder appropriate separate roles of dard to the capital

standard afforded defendants a safeguard.” judge jury. “significant 468 U.S. at Alabama, post- appeal 2. In other state which allows 1. from the denial of On Schiro's relief, held jury’s this Court that trial conviction court to override the recommenda trial death, its Supreme could take into account observations of court tion the Alabama Court courtroom, those ob in the that the defendant yet has to formulate distinct standard. germane to the court’s consider servations cases, Supreme inde the Alabama Court such recommendation, jury's ation mitigat aggravating pendently weighs the not the sole basis for observations were ing circumstances determine whether impose the death decision court's penalty appropriate. E.g., Parte Ex N.E.2d 1247, 479 Schiro denied, — (Ala.1986), Hays, So.2d 768 U.S. U.S. -, (1988). 99 L.Ed.2d 262 Chavez, has leading personali- Martinez as the The United States ty. of the sentenc declared that discretion ing authority, judge jury, or must whether accomplice may While an be found Spaziano, limited and reviewable. guilty of the crime largely executed 462, 104 3163, L.Ed.2d at S.Ct. at U.S. principal, it does that the same follow Meaningful state su review appropriate. penalty is Frankfurt Justice safeguard is an preme important written, “[Tjhere greater in er has is no imposition the death assure equality equal than the of un treatment arbitrary discriminatory,3 regard or is not States, equals.” Dennis v. United judge jury and the less of whether 519, 526, 94 L.Ed. agree appropriate that death (1949) (dissenting opinion). Be jury’s overrides the people cause reasonable could differ on the life. Id. at 104 S.Ct. at appropriateness of the death L.Ed.2d at 356. Chavez, the trial court should

In order to a defendant to have overridden recommenda sentence tion. after has recommended death, justifying a death facts convincing sentence should be so clear and II. Martinez Chavez’s Conviction virtually person no challenging pen- addition disagree appropriate that death was alty, appeals his convic- A trial light of the offender and his crime. tion. He raises three issues: jury’s recommen court cannot override the A) Whether the trial court’s failure unless the this standard. dation facts meet independent interpreter vi- appoint an process; due olated in this jurors None of the twelve objections to the B) case had conscientious is sufficient to Whether convictions; them from would deter support the recommending it. See C) deny- erred in Whether trial court (Burns 35-37-1-5 1985 § prospec- ing separate voir dire of each capable recommending it was showed juror. tive it sentence death because found a death Rondon, appropriate for the codefendant. Separate Interpreter Right A. findings and trial court made careful little, if Martinez Chavez understands lightly jury’s recom did not override the English. presents He a number any, mendation, Rondon concluded that interpreters arguments based on the used culpa equally and Martinez with him. to communicate ble. Cha people Questioning. Martinez suggest Police The facts provide him with question claims that failure to differ on the of whether vez could interpreter during preliminary appropriate for Martinez an unbiased was right against self- implicated questioning violated his Most of the evidence Chavez. He cases which incrimination. cites two rather than Martinez Chavez. Rondon reversed convictions because he kill Alarcon. He this Court said would Rondon trans arresting police officer as the vic- served Amiotte to He had the asked drive. hearings. v. guilty plea Mislik bracelet, key a safe- at the dog tags, lator tim’s 551 184 110 N.E. together Ind. a stash State ty deposit box (officer say “I was there” told defendant to gave cash. two knives blood-stained plead though defendant wanted mur- even morning after the girlfriend his Ind. Rondon, guilty); Bielich der. evidence established Florida, & n. Rehnquist that the Florida has noted 3. Justice & n. 8 & n. 38 death Supreme Court had 17 of the vacated up Dobbert had to 1977. sentences it reviewed testimony during (defendant intend rized the witnesses did not 126 N.E. 220 throughout recesses the entire plead guilty). two brief four-day at 388. The Second trial. Id. picked up Martinez Cha- police When procedure denied found that Circuit Rodriquez questioning, Officer Sam vez for right of confrontation the defendant’s Roger interpreter. Officer as an served endangered rights. other Id. at 389. questions in formulated Szostek Spanish. Rodriquez translated into which Eight years Congress passed later Rodriquez then translated Martinez Cha- Interpreters Act of 28 U.S.C. English and Szostek answer into vez’s (1978). Although governs the Act English. The offi- up a statement in typed interpreters only the federal the use of sign the state- cers had Martinez Chavez construing Act is a recent case system, English. form in ment and a waiver resolving helpful in Martinez Chavez’s ar hearing, Martinez suppression At stated that gument. The Ninth Circuit not understand that Chavez said he did generally requires the inter the Act while waiving rights'. court The trial was continu preter to at the defendant’s side be used ruled that the statement adequately met ously, purposes were its impeachment purposes. Martinez Cha- interpreter had an when the defendants ruling wrong. argues the Wheth- vez when except on three occasions all times right wrong does not ruling was er the interpreter the trial court “borrowed” validity of the conviction because affect Lim, a witness. United States v. to assist only to im- used the statement the State (9th Cir.1986), F.2d 469 during the death peach Martinez Chavez 93 L.Ed.2d 367. If the trial penalty phase of the trial. err, did not affect the did the error case is more similar to The instant conviction. Negron. than to While Cha Lim ar- Hearing. Martinez Chavez Joinder translation at did not have continuous vez by failing to trial court erred gues that the joinder hearing, he did have simulta translation at provide simultaneous proceedings at the other neous translation hearing hearing joinder. At that Robert on hearing joinder against him. At the brief appeared as Martinez Chavez’s Hinojosa simul did not have where Martinez Chavez provide interpreter, he did not simulta- translation, attorneys made le taneous the said, court The trial neous translation. court gal arguments to the without simultaneous necessary not to do the “It’s argu any Had the presenting witnesses. long he’s told what has as as translation required testi factual and the ments been presented their Counsel then occurred.” witnesses, procedures used at mony of calling any wit- legal arguments without hearing might implicated have joinder hearing, the trial court During the nesses. right confrontation Martinez Chavez’s the attor- Hinojosa explain to what directed pres rights attendant to his and the other arguing The trial neys were about. transla in court. While simultaneous ence said, defend- explain “I him to to the want better, hearing of the would have been tion today here for is the motion we’re ant that adequately protected Mar trial court Reynaldo join his case with the trial to directing the inter rights by tinez Chavez’s Rondon.” attorneys him preter to tell cannot indigent An defendant who case should be arguing over whether his right English has a to understand speak joined Rondon’s. with simultaneously trans proceedings his have Trial. Martinez Chavez Translation at participation. for effective lated to allow procedure at tri- challenges the translation Negron rel. States ex United court should argues that the trial al. Cir.1970). (2d York, 434 F.2d 386 New interpreter independent an appointed have defendant never received Negron, the facili- interpreter to to the court in addition in the trial was of translation while benefit attorney. his tate communications merely summa- progress. The translator case, non-Eng enables In the interpreter An other the United States Su- preme indigent Court held that an speaking lish defendant understand criminal trial, right defendant provides had the assistance of a means of communication independent an psychiatrist when the de- attorney, between the defendant and his sanity seriously question. fendant’s in testimony and the defendant’s if translates Oklahoma, Ake v. Neave, he testifies. State v. 117 Wis.2d (1985). 84 L.Ed.2d 53 Martinez Cha- 362 n. 344 N.W.2d 183 n. vez correctly notes that interpreter necessary to im right ruled a defendant had the plement notions of fundamental due preparation consult a in psychiatrist trial, right present cess such as the to be at presenting insanity though an defense even right accusers, to confront one’s already the trial court had relied on a right to counsel. court-appointed psychiatrist to determine competent whether the defendant was interpret Gomez served as Abe trial. right stand He sees the to an inde- iner this trial. All but one witness testi pendent analogy. interpreter as an English. fied in Gomez sat behind Mar simultaneously tinez translated A analogy psychia- is too tenuous. testimony Spanish. into Dur provides insanity trist the substance ing testimony of Spanish- the brief independent psychi- defense and an without witness, speaking Gomez translated the indigent atrist an defendant would de- time, testimony English. into At that of prived opportunity prove in- course, need appellant interpret did not an sanity. merely interpreter An translates er. never The trial court allowed Gomez to adding anything words without of sub- party, although take stand for either sup- stance to Ake does the defense. Rodriquez’s Gomez did attest to Officer port the trial court conclusion fluency Spanish. separate appointed interpret- should have in addition er Martinez Chavez to the maintains provided. translation Gomez appointed another inter- should have preter argument in addition to Gomez. His ap- oral argument, At Martinez Chavez’s inability single of a focuses on the transla- pellate indicated that Martinez counsel Cha- tor to simultaneous provide translation vez used to communicate with his Gomez proceedings interpreter serve as an counsel Because Martinez at recesses. attorney. between him and his He cites with his counsel Chavez communicated support argument. of this two cases through times interpreter at other than distinguishable. Both cases are trial, arrange- during the the translation right him of the deprive ment did not case, Ap the California Court of one procedures used trial af- counsel. The peals held that a defendant who does a fair trial forded Martinez Chavez effectively speak English is denied his meaningfully present, he able to which was right interpreter an when his defense accusers, represented by confront his and People attorney must translate. v. Cha counsel. 215, vez, Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. (1981) pro Spanish Record. The court (construing state constitutional Absence of reporter portions those interpreter throughout took down requiring vision an English did proceedings that were but proceedings). The court reasoned that interpreter’s simultaneous not record the defense counsel could not cross-examine witnesses, to Martinez Chavez. attentively testimony Spanish translation listen object at trial did not and at the same time Martinez Chavez objections and make that the trial court com- appeal claims on complete render and accurate translation failing pro- error Cal.Rptr. his at mitted fundamental clients. Id. at verifying the independent means of reasoning apply not here vide an 313. This does that the suggests simulta- translation. He counsel did because Martinez Chavez’s taped been should have neous translation attorney interpreter. and serve as both at a night to allow review later time someone tion near the victim’s house on the Spanish. Amiotte spoke murder. let the two men out who twenty and about Martinez minutes later This has held the record of a that Later, Chavez returned. Amiotte Ron- saw post-conviction proceeding complete was shopping bag don with a that contained though the reporter even did not from jury items the victim’s house. The separately take down Spanish words reasonably appellant par- infer that interpreter English. translated into ticipated in the robbery. (1979), 271 Ind. Garcia person A person who aids another denied, N.E.2d cert. an offense commit commits the offense. factor 137. One (Burns 35-41-2-4 presence the Garcia decision was may person felony A be convicted of mur- priest petitioner’s spoke Spanish who though accomplice even der was his who confirmed that the ac translation was killed the victim. Richardson v. State curate and correct. 391 N.E.2d Id. (1985), proving 476 N.E.2d 497. In Although only at 606. record contained felony charge, murder need the State petition translation and not the show that defendant intended to com- Spanish, er’s answers in ruled the Court underlying felony; mit the it need not es- petitioner knowingly that the and voluntar intent to kill. tablish Head v. State ily pled guilty. Ind., 443 N.E.2d 44. A criminal denied defendant is Appellant’s argument regarding process accuracy scope when the due credibility Copeland of Amiotte and was hearing at a of a translation or trial is jury. found Mar- before still grave subject to doubt. United States guilty. tinez Chavez suf- The evidence was Cirrincione, (7th Cir.1985). 780 F.2d 620 support felony ficient to conviction interpreter in this case took an oath to murder. truly, appellant translate no presents C. Individual Dire Voir suggest interpreter the trial Although indepen his oath. Chavez claims violated an by denying court erred individual dire interpreter voir dent did corroborate Go translation, in his death case. The trial court priest mez’s as the did in Gar did allow individual voir dire of those cia, interpre there is no indication that the jurors spective who were familiar with the subject grave tation is doubt. reports, crime from news but it conducted Sufficiency group voir dire the rest. B. Evidence Appellant acknowledges has Appellant argues the Court the evidence this issue claim. support decided adverse to his insufficient to convictions. (1984), Ind., 465 N.E.2d Burris v. State challenges credibility of two witnesses denied, implicated him in who the crime. Nevertheless, reviewing sufficiency of the evi urges previ the Court to its reconsider dence, reweigh this Court will not the evi holdings and find the trial court ous credibility nor dence wit its discretion he is a Mariel abused because nesses to determine whether the evidence distinguish This does not his situa Cuban. supports the conclusion that the defendant presented from other cases and decid tion beyond a guilty doubt. contrary. E.g., ed to Wisehart Loyd v. State 272 Ind. (1985), Ind., denied, N.E.2d 449 U.S. 476 U.S. 231, 66 L.Ed.2d (1986); (1985), Ind., Lowery v. State girlfriend Rondon’s overheard 475 U.S. a Rondon and Martinez Chavez discuss 106 S.Ct.

plan presents to rob the Pursuant to this no error on this victim. plan, a loca- Amiotte drove the two men to issue. Merge majority saying Two tect that the jury

III. Convictions is the composed people was of who reasonable Although Martinez Chavez does determination, judge made a the was a issue, is apparent raise it that one the they disagreed, person, reasonable and that In of must be vacated. the convictions people and therefore reasonable could dif- I, charged Martinez Cha Count Obviously, logic applied, fer. if this is II, charged vez with murder. Count case judge there would be no in which a felony murder. Because one him with jury though could override a even law occurred, Martinez Chavez cannot murder clearly provides it. for be sentenced on convictions. both Sandlin 1116. The N.E.2d truth, applied the test to be where a merges the con conviction for murder with imposes a judge trial death sentence is The trial court felony viction for murder. judge on that based the determination former. is directed vacate the findings according to his entered written evidence, The death sentence is vacated and the independent review of the remanded to the trial court for sen- cause aggravating from which he finds circum- tencing years felony on to a term of justifying stances the death under murder conviction. aggravating These the law. circumstances mitigating any must overcome circumstanc- DeBRULER, DICKSON, GIVAN and and demonstrate the result was not irra- es JJ., concur. arbitrary. tional or This is true whether jury against recommends death or PIVARNIK, Justice, concurring and dis- judge This is .true death. because senting. regardless the ultimate sentencer of what majority in II of While I concur Issue being of jury recommends. At the risk opinion, I must dissent to the conclusions emphasize judge repetitious, I in I majority reached Issue concern things jury do even if the rec- must these overriding of ing the trial court’s ommends death a death because imposed except by cannot be the trial nor has This issue is new this court judge. upon it failed to visit itself the various country, jurisdictions throughout cul judge The in case made the instant minating in the United States findings supported by lengthy which were Spaziano in v. Florida Court resolution found that the evidence the evidence. He equal- clearly Martinez Chavez was showed L.Ed.2d 340. killing ly responsible of for the intentional committing Alarcon while Francisco a majority proposes to establish new robbery. there was an crime of He found hold that before a standard which would agreement Rondon and Martinez between a verdict could override rob Alarcon the under- Chavez to death, justifying facts a death sentence standing might be need to kill Alar- there convincing that vir- should be so clear the Alarcon if he resisted. found con person disagree tually no reasonable there bungalow, home was small light appropriate was that death signs of demonstrated violence Actu- character and crime. offender’s glass every room broken and bloodstains this court ally this is a standard to which house, and that both Rondon and sentence, reviewing particu- any adheres for in the home Martinez Chavez were imposed is in- larly where the sentence have been He found it would some time. term statutory be- creased from basic to have impossible for Martinez Chavez aggravating circum- finding of a cause bystander under the circum- merely a been majority then finds the facts stances. trial court fur- stances as described. people this case indicate pointed out ther appropriateness on could differ only occupant of the seat I back fail penalty Martinez Chavez. and that the I leave the scene de- car used to support this conclusion. to find after the mur- seat was blood stained back judge concluded the inten-

der. The trial robbery perpetration of a

tional murder enterprise joint between

was a Rondon, they equally injustice an

culpable, and it would be equally. treated not to be

both supports the trial court’s

The evidence question is not which of the

findings. The culpable, more but how

defendants was Spazi

culpable Martinez Chavez. ano, 468 U.S. at 104 S.Ct. at

L.Ed.2d at Blackmun Justice reasoned: people’

“Whether or not ‘reasonable here, nothing differ over the result we see arbitrary imposition

irrational or about the Again, of the death in this case.” responsibil

Justice Blackmun stated: “Our however, second-guess

ity, is not to the def

erence accorded the case, particular in a to ensure that the arbitrary dis is not process

result of criminatory.” Id. at to be is the test This L.Ed.2d at 356. or, in a review of applied fact, any sentence a trial a matter

as stan court has set imposes. This making determi applied in to be dards cases, virtually hundreds of some

nation refers to and cites. majority of which very experi in this case is a

The trial He has made his judge. criminal

enced writing comport

findings in I supported by the evidence. and are

law respects. in all judgment affirm

would Sada, and Jose

Maximo ENAMORADO (Defendant Below), Appellants Indiana, Appellee

STATE Below). (Plaintiff

No. 49S00-8607-CR-00694.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

March

Case Details

Case Name: Martinez Chavez v. State

Court Name: Indiana Supreme Court

Date Published: Mar 1, 1989

Citation: 534 N.E.2d 731

Docket Number: 1085S426

Court Abbreviation: Ind.