*1 situ- appropriate an isn't really this that Judge challenge does have and myself recuse me to for ation he asserts rather impartiality, Heid's else in with someone over all in- start you to opportunity denied he was your to respect due witness, with So case. this potential aas Heid Judge terview it be and here, it should denying I think his case. motion hobbled which stay I'll and ahead goWe'll stated: is denied. court recuse, trial to motion the case. on proceedings throughout Well rep- here, the State conducted were no error We discern de- and the attorneys by three resented mo- denial trial court's attorneys two represented fense to recuse. tion any conver- were there the extent to and Conclusion or issues procedural about sations rea- for some matters housekeeping denying the judgment affirm recorded, I think been not have may son re- post-conviction petition were people of those all almost all or lief. dis- if there I know attendance. the sheriff security issues SULLIVAN, about C.J., cussions SHEPARD, and another perhaps attendance RUCKER, JJ., concur. BOEHM ample there's I think so deputy, those about testify who can witnesses took they the extent to
conversations calling requirement without
place add cumu- to witness as a judge trial testimony, cumulative
lative, perhaps the crux however it seems why to down MILLER, comes this issue Defendant- G. Ronnie whether object and Appellant, to made not decision to Mr. unfavorable or favorable it was than rather a stun belt Stevens Plaintiff-Appellee. Indiana, STATE of restraint kind other some making decision those thought process, 49S00-9908-CR-445. No. de- process internal is-it's of Indiana. Court Supreme knowl- had no court which fense privy wasn't certainty or edge 26, 2002. June I matter in this strategy defense any helpful provide able not be would decision how that about
information favorable it was whether about
came And the defendant. unfavorable that's work the amount given it to in preparing in this case done
been May of since pending it's been point, from days are ten we here year,
last me trial, just it seems long week *3 County Deputy Sutton, Marion
Ann M. IN, Attor- Defender, Indianapolis, Public Appellant. ney Freeman-Wilson, Attorney Gen- Karen Perry, Thaddeus Indiana, Arthur eral General, Deputy Attorney. Indianapolis, coercion, manipulation, and fabricated ev- IN, for Appellee. Attorneys idence, combination his vulnera- ble mental state. The defendant argues DICKSON, Justice. the "totality of the cireumstances defendant, Miller, Ronnie G. creates a full picture of the unwitting convicted of murder and criminal deviate mentally retarded defendant being led conduct in the 1995 death 71-year-old down path detriment, to his own Anna Pennington,2 beaten, who was sexu path being paved by and coercion." lies ally attacked, strangled death her Br. of Appellant at 17. office where she managed an Indianapolis trial,
residence Prior converted eight into apartments. filed a mo- *4 tion suppress The State sought "the had statement of the penalty death but the defendant trial court made during dismissed the the interrogation death penalty count before trial of the because it defendant 6-7, found on August 1995." the defendant to be mentally retarded.3 at 266. The defendant's extensive Following verdict, the jury's the defendant supporting brief requested the court sixty-five sentenced to years for mur "suppress the entirety of his statements der twenty years for criminal deviate made on August 7, 6 and August 1995 to conduct, with the sentences to be served Det. Craig Converse." . Record at 309. consecutively. appeal, this we address The trial court denied the motion. During the following claimed trial court errors: trial, when the State was questioning De- (1) admitting his statement that police ob tective Converse regarding his preliminary by tained (2) coercion and manipulation; interview of defendant before the excluding the testimony of a psycho social videotaped interview, the objected, defense logical expert in (3) confessions; coerced expressly referring objections to its previ- convicting him on insufficient evidence. ously presented. 2320, Record at Concluding that the exelusion expert of When the State offered the videotape and error, was reversible we reverse its transcript into evidence, the and remand for new trial. objected "based on reasons previous- made 1. Voluntariness of Statement ly known to Court, and incorporat[ing]
The defendant contends that his prior state- reference hearings and argument ment to should have been sup- support the objection." Record at of pressed because it was the result of 2875. The objections were denied. The jury found the guilty sepa- witnesses, ions of several the trial charges rate felony murder murder. court significant found that subaverage intel- At sentencing the merged trial court the felo- IQ lectual functioning "equates with an ny murder count into the murder conviction. approximately 70-to 75 or below...." Rec- ord at 264A. The court dismissed the State's 3. The may State not seek the penalty death request sentence, for the death concluding against mentally a retarded individual. Ind. that the defendant significantly "has subaver- § Code 35-36-9-6. purpose, For this "men- age intellectual functioning experts in that tally retarded individual" is defined as "an trained in the intelligence field of testing who, ad- individual becoming before twenty-two ministered (22) years standardized age, tests to (1) manifests: [slignificantly traditional him and concluded that subaverage his intellectual func- (2) functioning; intellectual impairment [slubstantial tioning was at 67 adaptive behav- [which] confirms measure- ior; ments that is taken grade of him in prior documented in a court school ordered report." age (22) evaluative twenty-two § Ind.Code years." 35-36-9-2. hearing After a opin- consideration of the
767 Denno, 347 U.S. Leyra v. continuity, time- appeal asserted grounds ~ 948, 719, 716, L.Ed. 561, 98 556, 74 S.Ct. trial. ly raised maturity, (1954); 952 the defen admit decision 599-601, 596, 68 Ohio, U.S. 332 Haley v. matter of ais discretion statements dant's 224, 8303-04, 228 302, L.Ed. 92 S.Ct. considering after court trial J.); edu (1948) Douglas, (opinion Kahlenbeck cireumstances. totality of Texas, 707, 386 U.S. cation, v. Clewis (Ind.1999). 1213, 1216 State, N.E.2d 719 v. 423, 1338, 1341, L.E.d.2d 712, 87 S.Ct. trial challenge to a reviewing "When condition, Green (1967); physical reweigh the decision, do not we court's 520-21, 519, Wisconsin, 890 U.S. wald v. record examine instead evidence 77, 1158-54, 1152, 20 L.Ed.2d 88 S.Ct. of vol- substantial, probative curiam); (1968) (per 79-80 mental State, N.E.2d v. 191, Schmitt Alabama, 352 U.S. untariness." health, v. Fikes v. Horan (Ind.2000); see 147, 148 246, 284, 281, 1 L.Ed.2d 196, 77 S.Ct. (Ind.1997). It 502, 510 State, 682 N.E.2d (1957). "beyond prove burden the State's 680, 698, Williams, 507 U.S. Withrow volun the defendant doubt reasonable 407, 420 128 L.Ed.2d 113 S.Ct. the de rights, tarily waived *5 394 U.S. Cupp, v. (1998); Frazier also see giv voluntarily was confession fendant's 1424-25, 22 1420, 789, 731, 89 S.Ct. In 148.4 Schmitt, at N.E.2d 730 en." (1969) (considering dura 684, 698 L.Ed.2d circumstances totality the of at the looking decep police intelligence, tion, maturity, may be evidence, many factors all from to defen communicated tion, rights including: considered 1078, State, N.E.2d 547 dant); v. Light coercion, duration, police (Ind.1989) (considering of element the crucial 1077-79 con-duet); 157, 167, police 479 U.S. Connelly, intelligence, v. education Colorado 478, 522, 484 515, L.Ed.2d lenbeck, 98 at 1216-17 N.E.2d S.Ct. 719 107 Kah intelli maturity, interrogation, (1986); (considering length duration, rights, 143, intoxication, of advisement Tennessee, US. gence, 822 v. Ashcraft State, 490 926-27, L.Ed. 921, 88 v. Carter 153-54, 64 S.Ct. deception); police (Ind.1986) (considering 288, 290-91 N.E.2d location, Reck (1944); see 1192, its 1199 intelli maturity, rights, 1541, of 441, 433, advisement Pate, 81 S.Ct. 367 U.S. v. interrogation)5 of length (1961); gence, its 948, 954 1546-47, 6 LEd.2d had defendant involuntary when ment prove State require the courts Indiana under- that he rights, indicated a read beyond been a confession voluntariness decisions, them, of nor- doubt, individual mature was a federal unlike stood reasonable interroga- by preponderance not been only proof and had require intelligence which mal State, time); 738 Henry v. see See evidence. amount an inordinate ted for (Ind.2000). 663, (finding 664 n. 1 Carter, N.E.2d at 290-91 N.E.2d 490 though voluntary even statement conduct, that we note police regard to In vic- defendant falsely told police automatically ren deception does not police had because still alive tim was Kahlenbeck, inadmissible. confession der a he un- rights, indicated apprised been repeatedly We have N.E.2d 719 normal derstood, a mature individual during an inter deception police stated interrogated was not intelligence, totality of consider one factor view is time). note We also amount inordinate State, Willey (citing the circumstances. statements police all that not 434, (Ind.1999)) (finding that 441 N.E.2d constitute fact, as falsely claim deception of conjecture, presented the admitted State, 707 N.E.2d Ellis v. deception. See during inter possessing certain ing Ellis, (Ind.1999). we determined state- render rogation. did not determine, must in light of totality of defendant that witnesses had seen the de- cireumstances, whether the police conduct fendant in the hallway outside the victim's will, overbore the defendant's thus render first floor office. But Detective Converse ing his involuntary. statement Henry v. only knew that a witness saw the defen- State, (Ind.2000). 738 N.E.2d upstairs dant hallway, and that no witness had stated that the defendant that,
The evidence indicates after being told seen friends that outside the the local first televi floor office. In the sion news broadcast his name in course of connec further interrogation, Detective murder, tion with a recent presented Converse the defendant with a the defendant voluntarily went to the police station to fabricated fingerprint card and computer "get it cleared up." Record at 22083. The printout and represented the defen- at p.m. arrived 5:30 and was fingerprints dant's had been found in the placed in an interview room and the door fact, victim's office. In while fingerprints was closed. The interview room door au had scene, been recovered they had tomatically locks from the outside when yet been identified at the time of the closed. The duty detective on periodically interrogation. Detective Converse also checked on the defendant to see if he showed the defendant report needed anything. The defendant was not that stated that the victim died of natural formally arrested at this time. After the causes. Converse, knowing that defendant had waited approximately two report erroneous, nevertheless hours, Indianapolis Police Detective Craig suggested to the defendant that the death Converse, who assigned case, could have been an accident. During the arrived and began talking to the defen period entire of questioning, the defendant dant. *6 given was breaks snacks, for drinks, and to hour, For about one Detective Converse use the restroom. a.m., Just before 1:00 gathered background and preliminary in- the defendant acknowledged that he had formation from the defendant. When the encountered the victim in her office on the defendant initially denied being at the night death, of her that he pushed open apartment house where the victim was office, the door to her she him told to "Get murdered, which contrary was to the infor- out," the hell and that she then up, backed mation developed in police the investiga- fall, started to and that he reached out and tion, Detective Converse considered the the subsequent injuries happened. Record defendant to be a suspect and orally in- at 2369. formedthe defendant of his rights. No waiver of rights was signed At at point, a.m., this time. this about 1:00 Detective Detective Converse's Converse and ensuing the defendant questioning took a 45- became more break, focused minute and during included con- which time the de- fronting the defendant with speculation provided fendant was with a soda and assertions that misstated or exagger- opportunity to use the rest room. He then ated information known to the detective. was left alone in the room until approxi- Specifically, Detective Converse told the mately a.m., 1:45 when Detective Converse if good have a faith basis for their similar to his deceptive was not though even falsehood, technical then their they evidence, action will not had no actual and threatening be deceptive. (where deemed had arrest-suspect's brother and sister if sus- pect did not cooperate footprints scene, observed at the crime telling deceptive was not suspect during interrogation they that had suspect's siblings when already were in custo- print of a shoe which dy). would be I going down she was when her either under he was that defendant informed my fingers her and trying to catch was wanted Detective Converse that arrest know, and, you face hit her must have the defen- which tape," on put "to .... damn. at Record "okay." responded dant then stat- The defendant at 2395. Record videotaped inter- of the beginning theAt her, she but that as push that he didn't ed advised again
view, Converse Detective and his down, him down pulled she went one, and by one rights, his defendant her, hit her with and he top face fell on if each, the defendant asked reading after Detective head. When chin or his right, As to each it. he understood that when the told the defendant Converse understand- acknowledged defendant arrived, pants the victim's con- detective's response ing. autopsy indicated that an down pulled mean to it does "What cluding question vagina, in her penetration that there was rights?" you your I tell you when raped, the defen- indicating that she Iif means that "It responded, defendant raped wasn't she responded, dant know, "Well, say anything, to, you want didn't know, 'wouldn't, do noth- me, you I sir. could, I attorney or an talk to I can at Record lady." that to no older ing like (inaudible) you know, on with come you thereafter, approxi- at Shortly 2407-08. up." know, this cleared get termi- a.m., the interview mately 2:85 reminding the defendant After then who of the defendant request nated at charged under arrest that he to an to talk he wanted indicated questioned murder, Converse time At no attorney. Record In the incident. about inter- portion videotaped during the defen- interview videotaped ensuing or refer use Detective Converse view did that, day of on the admitted dant misstatements, speculation, any of the house apartment he entered killing, he information exaggerated assert- He acquaintance. intending to contact preceded questioning during the ed on his and knocked the structure entered interview. videotaped Get- door. apartment first floor friend's interrogation, saw the of his he turned At the time response, ting no em- forty-years-old and then office door standing in her victim *7 ap- normally, then he did spoke he ployed, the door. closing influ- the person under another or to contact be incoherent to upstairs pear went at 1162- Record drugs. to leave downstairs return of alcohol and, his ence upon indica- again no allegation office door There is saw the 1325. building, he mentally try- knew he that the victim Believing tion that closing. conversations, de- criminal prior defendant's his retarded. ing to overhear door, familiarity with the office his open history evidences pushed fendant at 1854- Record system. justice criminal said, here." out of "Get the victim his advised of following descrip- orally twice He was He offered 56. statement, videotaped Con- his prior to rights occurrence tion of commencement at the again and once verse: statement, advise- which videotaped said, there, "Get she standing She expressly acknowledged he ment back here," go and started out of demonstrated further He waived. falling and when way and she other request- later he rights when of awareness her from keep trying to I, I was guess I he because stop interview ed my hand of hand reaction my falling attorney. to an to talk hit wanted chin my then her face touched The trial court denied the Ofshe, motion to of Dr. Richard a psychologist called suppress, expressly noting its earlier de by the defense as an expert in the field of termination that the defendant was men "social psychology retarded, tally finding but that he freely, and false confessions." Br. of Appellant at voluntarily, and intelligently waived his 17. rights gave his statement police.6 trial, day On the first the State filed a The police interrogation facts are strik- motion in limine seeking an prohibit- order ingly similar to those in Henry, in which ing the expert and lay wit- falsely officers Henry told that his nesses from testifying about various mat- fingerprints were found at the seene of the ters, including "the interrogation process crime and that a witness identified him as case," used this defendant's and "the the person who killed the victim. 738 truthfulness state- addition, N.E.2d at 664. In "Henry actual- given in this case." ments/confession Ree- ly gave two incriminating statements: ord at Following a brief discussion first, unrecorded and accompanied by po- counsel, the trial court stated that it deceit; lice second, audiotaped with no preliminarily would grant the motion as to hint of deception. It was the second witnesses, all that when the defense's audiotaped confession that was admitted arrived, witness the court would
into evidence." Id. at 665. In Henry, we expert's hear the testimony out of the found no error in the admission of the jury's presence, motion, reconsider the confession. rule on it. Record at 1411-12. here, Similarly considering the totality The motion was then probative substantial reconsidered near evidence of the end of voluntariness record, shown evidence. jury's Out we find beyond presence, reasonable doubt that questioned the defen- defense Dr. Ofshe regarding voluntarily the matters it sought to dant rights, waived his and that his incriminatory statements admitted in Dr. present Ofshe jury. When voluntarily given. court, The trial the trial during the testimony of Dr. court did not err in denying the Ofshe, defen- expressed concern that his testimo- dant's motion suppress and overruling ny imply by would innuendo that Detective objections his trial to the admission of his Converse's interrogation of the defendant statements in evidence. produced confession, a coerced Record at 2830-81, Dr. explained: Ofshe Testimony Exclusion Expert Defendant's The nature of going
The defendant contends one, the trial be: about the general way in which *8 court erroneously excluded the testimony police interrogation works which fits the 6. The trial court entered following the find- 4. Det. Converse's deceit to Mr. Miller ings denying the defendant's motion to regarding the nature of the evidence in the suppress: possession detective's which occurred after Although this Court has found that reading the of the warnings "Miranda" Mr. mentally Miller is a person retarded does not amount to coercion improper pursuant 35-36-9-5, to 1.C. the Court finds negate which would Mr. Miller's free will that he legal understood all rights of his as giving the statement. described to him and that freely, he volun- Record at 342. tarily intelligently and rights waived his gave police the a statement. maintain that to hopeless it's nize that gave about that Converse description to under- crucial and that's used; second, it will position, he that tactics to someone you get to lead how it is standing that can things those be about confession; thing The second I did it." say, "Okay, false a giving someone take the use of how to about described third, will be that Converse it interrogation, just a record that out undisputed pointing it, in analyze it and part of the word the recorded and he used death natural what is- out figure to trying a moti- again terms That's in that. "accident" false confes- true or of a the indicia what is to make object vational tactic. ju- thereby for be-and might sion officer police that the believe suspect about how decision their to reach rors characterization willing to believe is oply role is My it. give to weight much heinous, less is less that happened what be ought to things what out point to also carries morally reprehensible considered. serious a less of-of implication then The defense perhaps at 2831-32. or Record even borderline perhaps to the stand Converse uh-for punishment called carrying no even in- him about it's questioned because the acts having committed Ofshe, self-defense, Dr. recalled and then terrogation, as characterized sometimes Detective Converse's whether asking him already has Converse example. for So "any characteristics testimony provided components principal the two illustrated confessions false phenomena . or interrogation. police modern area your he aware that things uh-I'm other Dr. at 2865. Ofshe Record study...." friendly. He tried acknowledges he replied: tell to-to He tries develop rapport. to things principle two identified He get only wants that he Mr. Miller inter- analysis go into that Mr. Miller confronts and he the truth First, talks about he rogation.... that Mr. or knows believes when he example. fingerprints, use of ploys de- evidence lying with Miller is as writings my to in I refer That's what direction in the move him signed to some- bringing before ploy, an evidence there. that he was admitting what contradicts that information one on evidence After the at 2865-67. Record that saying, been previously they trial court completed, the motion at a the in involvement them places dispute no there was that concluded is scene, that evidence whether crime interro- "the officer's regarding evidence false, it is evidence true expressed Record gation," an evidence I refer to as what-what testimony the witness's concern it to whether to restrict as not ploy, so ve- truth and "questioning be would ploy It's or false. it's true officer," witness, ... racity of a It is used tactically. it's used because ruled, going "I'm It Record person off move the in order to tactically reason." for that permit previously they had position supplemented The defendant by showing them maintaining been in limine motion hearing on the State's you aren't maintain that hopeless it's at 2908- prove. an offer *9 of evi- And the use in involved testimo- further included offer This in which way principal is the ploys dence expertise regarding Dr. Ofshe ny from "I didn't is-initially says, who someone po- area of writings and extensive recog- to it; gotten there" is I wasn't do interrogation
lice and false confession and jury. to the He asserts that "[the interro- a description of modern interroga- gation process, including its psychological tion technique. Dr. Ofshe described evi- ramifications, is not within the common ploys dence on psychological knowledge based princi- ordinary persons." Br. of pals used to "drive suspect's] Appellant [a at confidence 18. Acknowledging that down to point they where there is no evidentiary think it is dispute regarding arrest, virtually certain" whether they will be Converse confronted ed, tried, defendant speculation convicted. Record at and asser- He tions that explained misstated or exaggerated tactic of "maximiza- infor- mation known to police, or "the accident strate- defendant ar- tion/minimization" gues that he gy" which was entitled present is "intended to make it easier testimony regarding for the person say psychology 'I it.'" did Record false at confessions that 2918-15. would Dr. Ofshe then enable the stated that jury to why understand "police mentally are try get trained to re- corrobora- tarded defendant tion in "would post-admission narrative," succumb to the ex- lies" even though he was plaining the innocent. Br. of to obtain efforts details from Appellant at 19. suspect that are consistent with the known facts of the crime. Record at 2916. argues State that the court properly testified, Dr. Ofshe "There are innumera- excluded the testimony because the facts ble demonstrated cases people confess- of not dispute crimes, ing to being convicted, and subse- and because the jury would understand the quently being exonerated." Record at expert's testimony pertain to Det. Con- 2928. He also asserted that the "mentally verse's interrogation of the defendant handicapped are more suggestible alternative, this case. In the the State likely more to give confession," a false argues that the exclusion proffered stating they are "easier to manipu- evidence was harmless. late," appreciate less able to long-range We first observe that a trial consequences, persuade easier to to see court's determination that a defendant's facts as asserted interrogator, statement was and admissible voluntary get easier "to to give both true and preclude does not from chal defense false confessions." 2928-29. lenging its weight and credibility. Because the trial court did not reverse [T}he trial court prelimi- must make a ruling, earlier Dr. Ofshe did pres- nary factual determination of voluntari- any ent testimony to jury. ness when assessing the statement's ad- argues that, on appeal missibility. however, The jury, remains notwithstanding the trial finding court's the final arbiter of factual un- issues all that there was no dispute factual regard- der Article Section 19 of the Indiana ing the interrogating officer's techniques, Constitution. Even if the court prelimi- "there nothing to explain to jury narily determines that the statement why someone, voluntary and admits it for lies, confronted with would jury's then falsely admit to a crime." Br. of consideration, then the defendant is still Appellant at 10. The urges entitled dispute the voluntariness of even when a trial court determines a de- the statement once presented it is fendant's statement to be sufficiently vol- jury. Although the court has previously untary evidence, admission in the de- determined voluntariness in connection fendant may still dispute its voluntariness with the statement's admissibility, the
773 con about false objection without was testified the statement find may jury court sus the trial but generally, fessions jury makes If the involuntarily given. he was objection when the State's determination, give tained it should then a such interrogation about opinion his deciding the asked in weight no the statement offer of In Callis's case. in Callis's process innocence. or guilt defendant's was a that "there testified Dr. Ofshe proof, 1164, 1170 State, N.E.2d 648 v. Morgan of the accounts' dispute between 'great (The of this discussion (Ind.Ct.App.1995) officers, 'we witnessing and Callis Ap of of the Court opinion issue inculpa- an versions of three different adopted and approved expressly peals are denied ... all of which tory statement State, 1072 N.E.2d 675 v. Morgan in is tell Callis, '[slomeone and that by Mr. appro testimony is (Ind.1996).). Expert lying, is and someone truth ing the within not issues it addresses when priate two those to reconcile way no there's of experience knowledge the common omitted). (citations Id. things'" jury. aid and would ordinary persons the trial court's affirmed Appeals Court 702(a). [jurors] "When Rule Ind.Evidence ~ stating: ruling, falls outside faced are proper- the trial court conclude We specialists allow we experience, common testimony regarding Ofshe's ly admitted v. Carter insight." jurors' supplement confessions of coerced phenomenon (Ind.2001) (find State, 882 754 N.E.2d about opinion excluded properly however, "to testify, may not ing experts in be seen As can interrogation. Callis's intent, inno or guilt, concerning opinions aim of Ofshe's proof, the Callis's offer case; or the truth criminal in a cence express testimony was excluded a witness whether allegations; falsity telling witness to which as opinion conclu legal or truthfully; testified has statements. Callis's about the truth 704(b)). ju expect "We Evid.R. sions." pursu- not admissible testimony is Such personal their own upon to draw rors 704(b). R. to Evid. ant assessing in experience knowledge or inno understand deciding at 239-40. credibility N.E.2d guilt Carter, N.E.2d testimony opinion cence." expert prohibit Callis at In testi one or falsity of Carter, psychologist's a or held that the truth we regarding not find it difficult it does testimony, but children mony that autistic witnesses' more re- testimony to, cross prohibit did not generally close "came to deceive 704(b) partic- Rule in a impermissible techniques used line into garding police interrogation. Id. at 888-84. vouching." ular case, fact that present re of Dr. Ofshe not interrogation content garding on which basis proper not a dispute State, N.E.2d in Collis issue The defen- testimony. Dr. Ofshe's exclude trial court which the (Ind.Ct.App.1997), clearly included strategy trial dant's his testi limiting order pre-trial issued in- the voluntariness challenge to the circumstances regarding mony videotaped in his statements criminatory by prohibit statements thresh- The trial court's interview. defen "to the testifying as him from ing voluntari- sufficient old determination innocence, or the intent, guilt dant's did videotape admissibility of the ness for has a witness whether falsity of truth challenge to preclude legal conclusions." truthfully, or to testified From trial. credibility at weight its Callis, Dr. Ofshe At the trial *11 T74
our review of in 'cireumstances dant. The defendant is entitled to a new case, present general substance of Dr. trial.7 testimony Ofshe's would have assisted the -Insufficiency of the Evidence
jury regarding psychology of relevant aspects interrogation and the in- The defendant contends the evi terrogation mentally persons, retarded dence at trial is insufficient support topics common knowledge outside and ex- either of his convictions.8 perience. In the event that some of Dr. In addressing a claim of insufficient evi- Ofshe's testimony jury to the would have dence, an appellate court must consider 704(b)'s prohibition invaded Rule of opin- only probative evidence and reasonable ion testimony as to the truth falsity inferences supporting the judgment, with- statements, the trial court out weighing evidence assessing witness could sustained objec- individualized determing credibility, therefrom tions at trial. hold that excluding the whether a reasonable trier of fact could proffered expert testimony in entirety its have foundthe defendantguilty beyond a deprived the defendant of the opportunity State, reasonable doubt. Marcum v. present a defense. 852, (Ind.2000). N.E.2d petite 7Ii-year-old victim suf
The State argues that the exclu
fered multiple blunt
injuries
force
sion of Dr.
Ofshe's
was harmless
head and neck and died from manual
because the
presence
defendant's
strangulation. The
pants
victim's
victim's office
was established
pulled down
autopsy
and the
revealed evi
fingerprint
his
was found in what
dence of sexual assault
in the form of
appeared to be blood on
plastic
bag at
injuries to
vagina.
The defendant was
This is not inconsequential
evi-
seene.
identified as being at the apartment house
note, however,
denee. We
that during fi
shortly before the victim was found. The
nal argument
placed
the State
great em
statement to
admitted
phasis upon the defendant's videotaped
presence
his
at the murder seene near the
statements, including replaying part of the
erimes,
time of the
anger
his
at the victim
videotape to
jury and directing the
for eavesdropping
conversations,
on his
jury's
point
attention to a
during the video
entry into the victim's
despite
office
her
tape where "the
puts
his hands
leave,
telling him to
physical
con
up to Detective Converse's head and shows
tact with her and
falling
her
to the floor
you how he strangled Anna Pennington."
with him on top
Further,
of her.
Record at 3187. Given the prominence of
defendant's fingerprint was found at th
the defendant's statement
in the State's
~*
scene of the murder.
unique
case and the
pres
cireumstances
ent, we find that
The defendant maintains that the testi-
the erroneous
exclusion
of the whole of Dr. Ofshe's testimony af mony of the resident
identifying him as
fected the substantial rights of the
present
defen-
apartment
building was in-
result,
defendant,
Because of this
we do not address
he is entitled to have his convic
the: defendant's
claim of trial error
reversed,
tions
and he could not be retried.
hearsay
admission of
evidence from a de-
State,
(Ind.
See Stahl v.
686 N.E.2d
person.
ceased
1997);
State,
Vest v.
621 N.E.2d
1096-
(Ind.1993).
because,
8. We review this claim
if the evi
dence is found to be insufficient
to convict the
split
702 have
on that
The inconsis-
idence Rule
issue.
suspicious.
consistent
*12
Shay,
v.
57
brought
Compare
out
United States
F.3d
were
tencies
for the
(1st Cir.1995);
factual issues
at trial and were
v.
126
United
States
Holl,
(C.D.Ill.1997);
Challenging
probative
F.Supp.
974
1198
jury to resolve.
-
Florida,
--,
Boyer
fount at
v.
So.2d
2002
matching fingerprint
value of
9,
scene,
that the
argues
(Fla.Dist.Ct.App. May
WL 925015
2002)
Son,
initially
People
Cal.App
determined to be
with
v.
.4th
fingerprint
(2000),
through
Cal.Rptr.2d
ad-
Kansas
comparison
for
insufficient
as the de-
testing
was identified
Cobb,
ditional
(Kan.Ct.App.2002);
v.
that while scene, and the only the defendant's ordered to be com- prints were
victim's and that prints; to the crime scene
pared discovered were prints the other ten Tracy CRAWFORD, Appellant Sue and issues were These facts identified. (Defendant Below), by the at trial for consideration raised jury. pre- that from the evidence conclude Indiana, Appellee STATE of jury could find 'the a reasonable
sented Below). (Plaintiff guilty charged of the offenses doubt. No. 48S00-0103-CR-166. beyond a reasonable Conclusion of Indiana. Supreme Court trial court is re- judgment 26, 2002. a new and this case is remanded June versed proceedings trial or further consistent opinion. SHEPARD, C.J., and SULLIVAN JJ.,
RUCKER, concur.
BOEHM, J., separate concurs with
opinion.
BOEHM, Justice, concurring. I majority opinion.
I concur to note that the admis separately
write testimony under of Dr. Ofshe's
sibility ad Evidence Rule 702 was not
Indiana by Miller or the State. Juris
dressed that have considered the admis
dictions testimony as to
sibility false of Ev
confessions under various versions