Gibson v. State

Decision Date24 September 2015
Docket NumberNo. 22S00–1206–DP–359.,22S00–1206–DP–359.
Citation43 N.E.3d 231
PartiesWilliam Clyde GIBSON III, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

Steven E. Ripstra, Jasper, IN, Laura Paul, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.

Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Andrew A. Kobe, Henry A. Flores, Jr., Deputy Attorneys General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys For Appellee.

Opinion

MASSA

, Justice.

A jury found William Clyde Gibson III guilty in the murder of his late mother's elderly friend and recommended the death penalty, which the trial court imposed. In this direct appeal Gibson raises six issues, which we rephrase as whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying: his request for a fourth continuance, his request to dismiss an entire venire panel, his request to ask a case-specific question during voir dire, his request to dismiss several jurors for cause, and his request to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter; the final issue he raises is whether his sentence of death is appropriate. Finding no errors and no reason to revise his sentence, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

After William Clyde Gibson III's mother died, he began spending time with his late mother's best friend, 75–year–old Christine Whitis, and he began developing sexual feelings toward her. On April 18, 2012, an intoxicated Gibson invited Whitis into his mother's home and shoved his hand up her shirt, grabbing her breast. She responded by asking what his mother would think of his behavior. According to Gibson, this angered him. He went on to violently sexually assault Whitis: he ripped off her clothes, pushed his hand up her vagina, performed oral sex in a way that resulted in lacerations, and caused injuries to her arms, legs, face, and her head, which was likely slammed against something hard.

Gibson eventually killed Whitis by strangling her, taking more than four minutes to end her life. Over the course of the next 30 hours, after she was dead, Gibson continued performing oral sex on Whitis, even biting and “violently plunging his fist into her vagina.” Tr. at 2919. He manipulated her body to such a degree he ended up breaking her back. He dragged her body into the garage, where he left her legs separated and propped up on a box, exposing her vagina, and he likely used beer bottles to penetrate her. He also used a knife to cut off one of Whitis's breasts. Gibson took Whitis's severed breast with him, placing it in the console of her van, which he drove to various bars. He eventually returned home, and after hiding her van in the neighboring apartment complex and her purse in a closet, Gibson invited a friend over for more drinks.

When Gibson's sisters came to their mother's house the next day, they discovered Whitis's body and called the police. After a brief chase, the police apprehended a drunk Gibson driving Whitis's van. He admitted to killing her, although he denied having a plan to do so, saying he only wanted to have sex with her. Gibson claimed he “just snapped.” Ex. 6 at 243.

The State charged Gibson with murder and being a habitual offender. In seeking the death penalty, it charged four aggravators: an intentional killing (1) while committing criminal deviate conduct involving defendant's mouth and victim's sex organ, (2) while committing criminal deviate conduct involving penetration by an object, (3) while on probation, and (4) dismembering the victim. App. at 599–600; see Ind.Code § 35–50–2–9(b)

. During the investigation, police discovered two other murder victims whom Gibson admitted killing and which the State initially included as aggravators.

But, before the trial began, the Court ordered all references to those two other cases be excluded.

There was substantial pretrial publicity about the case; thus, although the crime occurred in Floyd County and was tried there, the parties agreed the jury pool would come from Dearborn County. Jury selection spanned four days, and the court conducted voir dire in two phases: during the first phase, fifty potential jurors reported in the morning and fifty more in the afternoon. They were questioned in groups of five—and often individually—on hardship, publicity, and the death penalty. Those not dismissed reported back for the second phase during which they were placed in the jury box, twelve at a time, so that both sides could speak with them and submit strikes.

A year and a half after Gibson was charged, his case went to trial in three phases: guilt as to murder, penalty as to murder, and a determination as to his habitual offender status. After a week-long trial, the jury found Gibson guilty of murder. It reconvened the next week for the penalty phase. As mitigation, Gibson offered evidence of growing up in a “military-style” house with a father that drank, although his sister described their childhood as “pretty normal.” Tr. at 3597, 3606. A former Floyd County correctional officer described Gibson's suicide attempt while in custody. And, a mental health expert testified that Gibson's own alcoholism combined with certain mental impairments

, including bipolar disorder and antisocial personality disorder, caused him to fear rejection and abandonment; thus, Whitis's rejection of his sexual advances could have elicited a reaction different than a normal person. Nevertheless, the jury found all four aggravators proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that those aggravating circumstances outweighed any mitigating circumstances; it recommended the death penalty. During the third phase, the jury found Gibson to be a habitual offender. The trial judge sentenced Gibson to death for Whitis's murder and withheld sentence on the habitual offender determination. It denied Gibson's motion to correct several alleged errors.

Gibson has directly appealed his capital case to this Court, for we have mandatory and exclusive jurisdiction over a criminal appeal where the defendant is sentenced to death. Ind. Appellate Rule 4(A)(1)(a)

. He argues six errors occurred at the trial court, which we discuss below in chronological order. Additional facts pertaining to each issue are provided as necessary.

I. The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Denying Gibson's Request for a Fourth Continuance.

Gibson was charged with Whitis's murder in April of 2012, and his trial was initially set for August of that year. In June, however, the parties jointly moved for a continuance, which the trial court granted, rescheduling trial for February of 2013. In December, Gibson moved for a second continuance, this time with the State objecting. Nevertheless, his trial was rescheduled for July of 2013. In April, Gibson moved for a third continuance. The court heard extensive argument from both sides, ultimately granting Gibson's motion over the State's objection and rescheduling trial for October of 2013. Gibson moved for a fourth continuance in August, arguing the State had continued providing discovery and he needed to follow up on certain leads. The State objected. The trial court heard argument, took the matter under advisement, and denied Gibson's request. Now on appeal, Gibson argues the trial court erred in denying him that fourth continuance.

Courts are generally reluctant to grant continuances in criminal cases merely to allow for additional preparation. Palmer v. State, 704 N.E.2d 124, 127 (Ind.1999)

. But a defendant is statutorily entitled to a continuance where there is an “absence of material evidence, absence of a material witness, or illness of the defendant, and the specially enumerated statutory criteria are satisfied.” Elmore v. State, 657 N.E.2d 1216, 1218 (Ind.1995) (citing Ind.Code § 35–36–7–1 ). If none of those conditions are present, however, a trial court has wide discretion to deny a motion to continue. Evans v. State, 489 N.E.2d 942, 948 (Ind.1986). We will only find an abuse of that discretion where a defendant was prejudiced as a result of not getting a continuance. Id. To demonstrate such prejudice, a party must make a “specific showing as to how the additional time requested would have aided counsel.” Carter v. State, 686 N.E.2d 1254, 1261 (Ind.1997).

Here, Gibson did not argue he was statutorily entitled to a continuance, instead maintaining he simply needed more time to review discovery materials. And the trial court found Gibson made “no showing how additional time would aid or avoid harm to the Defendant or why two full months isn't sufficient time to get the remainder completed.” Tr. at 340. That conclusion is consistent with our review of the record; we thus determine the trial court was well within its discretion in denying the continuance.

II. The Trial Court Did Not Err in Refusing to Dismiss an Entire Venire Panel or Declare a Mistrial Based on Some Potential Jurors' Exposure to Gibson's Other Murder Charges.

During the first day of the first phase of voir dire, one potential juror informed the court he overheard another potential juror, who was seated near him in the waiting room, tell four or five people in a “whispery” voice that “the accused has murdered three women.” Tr. at 950, 955. In response, Judge Orth went into the waiting room where the fifty-person venire panel was waiting, and admonished, “As a potential juror, you are strictly prohibited from doing any investigation about this case or speaking about this case, including to other prospective jurors.” Tr. at 955. She asked the potential jurors to raise their hands if they heard someone say something about the case; six did so.

Concerned the entire panel had been tainted, Gibson moved to dismiss all fifty potential jurors for discussing inadmissible evidence. The trial court denied that motion, finding it more appropriate to “poll and talk to everyone individually.” Tr. at 984. In groups of five, the potential jurors were asked whether they learned anything about the case outside of what they had been told by the court or had gleaned from the questionnaire; if...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT