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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT