ILNews

Court affirms conviction, sentence despite error

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Even though a jury instruction given during a forgery trial misstated the law, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a defendant's conviction and sentencing after finding other statements and instructions prevented any fundamental error in the case.

In Gloria Benefield v. State of Indiana, No. 41A01-0806-CR-272, Gloria Benefield appealed her conviction of and sentence for Class C felony forgery for providing a falsified Qualified Medication Aide certification during a job interview. During her trial, the trial court instructed the jury on the definition of "defraud," to which Benefield unsuccessfully objected because it was apparently drawn from Black's Law Dictionary.

She was sentenced to eight years incarceration for forgery, which was enhanced by six years for being a habitual offender.

Benefield waived her appeal of the issue of the jury instruction for review because she advanced a different reason on appeal than what she objected to at trial. She claimed on appeal that the instruction amounted to a fundamental error so it should be reviewed.

The original jury instruction defined "defraud" as to make a misrepresentation of an existing material fact, knowing it to be false, or making it recklessly without regard to whether it is true or false. The Indiana Supreme Court has held that an intent to defraud involves an intent to deceive, and the jury instruction suggesting that a person making a representation with reckless disregard for its truth may have the intent to deceive is not a proper statement of the law, wrote Judge Cale Bradford.

Even though the instruction misstated the law, it's not enough to reverse Benefield's conviction. The jury was properly informed in several instances that Benefield must have had the "intent to defraud" in order to be guilty of forgery.

"In summary, even though the jury was misinformed once regarding the proper mens rea for forgery, it was properly informed four times, including three times by the trial court. This repetition of the proper mens rea, especially because it came mostly from the trial court, very likely would have cured the error by itself," wrote Judge Bradford.

In addition, the jury was instructed to consider all the instructions as a whole and not to single out any point or instruction. As a result, there was no fundamental error in this case.

The appellate court also affirmed the admittance of testimony regarding documents that weren't admitted into trial and Benefield's sentence.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT