ILNews

Divided Supreme Court orders new murder trial

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Three justices have tossed out a murder conviction, ordering a new trial on the grounds that the trial judge should have given the jury the option to consider a lesser offense of reckless homicide.

But two justices disagreed, believing that requiring a trial court to give a lesser-included offense jury instruction after the defendant denied his guilt under oath would create a mockery of the murder trial.

In Brice Webb v. State of Indiana, No. 71S05-1106-CR-329, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case from St. Joseph Superior Judge Jerome Frese involving Brice Webb’s trial for the shooting death of his girlfriend in October 2009.

During the trial in 2010, the judge refused Webb’s request to give a reckless homicide lesser-included jury instruction because of the defendant’s testimony that denied he had committed the murder and wasn’t even present at the scene. The judge determined Webb can’t deny the act and then take advantage of the lesser-offense option. The jury found Webb guilty and determined he was a habitual offender, and the court sentenced him to 65 years for murder, enhanced by 30 years for the habitual offender adjudication. The Court of Appeals rejected each of Webb’s appellate claims and affirmed the judgment.

Justice Robert Rucker wrote the opinion, and he was joined by Justices Brent Dickson and Frank Sullivan in reversing the trial court. The majority relied on Wright v. State, 658 N.E.2d 563 (Ind. 1995), which developed a three-part test that trial courts should use when deciding whether to instruct on a lesser-included offense. Rucker wrote that the trial court didn’t go far enough in analyzing Webb’s case by that standard, and that Wright and its progeny make clear that trial courts must look at evidence presented by both parties in determining whether a serious evidentiary dispute exists.

The majority found the evidence in this case sufficient to support the jury’s guilty verdict, but the evidence also produced a serious dispute about whether Webb acted knowingly or recklessly. Depending on how the jury viewed and weighed the evidence, it could have led the jurors to return with a conviction of reckless homicide instead. The trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury was reversible error, Rucker wrote.

But Justice Steven David and Chief Justice Randall Shepard dissented in a separate opinion.

Because Webb chose to testify and say he wasn’t present at the scene, he shouldn’t be allowed to “make a mockery out of the state’s burden of proof and argue to a jury he was not there, but if he was, he didn’t have the necessary intent,” David wrote.

“I believe to require the trial court to give the lesser included jury instruction when Webb claims under oath at trial that he was not present and therefore not the shooter would result in a farce upon the trial court,” David wrote.

 

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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT