Carson v. State

Decision Date20 March 2012
Docket NumberNo. 29A04–1106–CR–278.,29A04–1106–CR–278.
Citation963 N.E.2d 670
PartiesLuke Keys CARSON, Appellant–Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

963 N.E.2d 670

Luke Keys CARSON, Appellant–Defendant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff.

No. 29A04–1106–CR–278.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

March 20, 2012.


[963 N.E.2d 671]

James D. Crum, Coots, Henke & Wheeler, P.C., Carmel, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Nicole M. Schuster, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

OPINION
CRONE, Judge.
Case Summary

Luke Keys Carson entered a woman's trailer without permission and left. Later

[963 N.E.2d 672]

that day, he returned and cut her hand with a knife. He also fought with another man and poked him in the abdomen with the knife. The State charged Carson with two counts of attempted murder, two counts of battery by means of a deadly weapon, burglary, and resisting law enforcement. Carson filed a notice of insanity defense. Carson was found incompetent to stand trial and was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. When he was restored to competency, a bench trial was held. Two experts found that Carson was mentally ill and, as a result of that mental illness, he was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct at the time of the crimes. The trial court found Carson not guilty of the two counts of attempted murder. As to the remaining counts, the trial court found, based on Carson's demeanor during and after the crimes, that Carson was able to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct at the time of the crimes, thereby rejecting Carson's insanity defense. The trial court found him guilty but mentally ill of two counts of battery by means of a deadly weapon, burglary, and resisting law enforcement.

On appeal, Carson argues that the trial court erred in rejecting his insanity defense because the evidence is without conflict and leads only to the conclusion that he was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct at the time of the crimes. In the alternative, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his burglary conviction.

We conclude that the evidence of Carson's demeanor during and after the crime supports the trial court's determination that he was able to appreciate the wrongfulness of actions at the time of the crimes and therefore was guilty but mentally ill. We also find that the evidence is sufficient to support his burglary conviction. We therefore affirm his convictions.

Facts and Procedural History

In the spring of 2009, Carson lived in a Westfield trailer park. Angelina Zuniga lived in the same trailer park, but the two were not acquainted. On the morning of April 16, 2009, Zuniga was in her trailer home eating breakfast when she heard someone opening her unlocked door. She turned and saw an unknown man, later determined to be Carson, standing a couple feet inside her trailer. He was holding a black Bible and some paper and spoke to her in English, which she did not understand. After a couple minutes, Carson said “never mind” and left. Tr. at 64. Zuniga locked the door.

Thirty to forty-five minutes later, Carson returned to Zuniga's trailer and tried to open the door. Zuniga was in her trailer with a friend. When Zuniga saw Carson at the door, she went to the door, opened it, and asked what he wanted. As she stood in the doorway, Carson again spoke to her in English, and she asked him in her “broken English if he had any problems.” Id. at 70. Carson came toward Zuniga and cut her right hand with a knife.1 Zuniga went back inside and yelled to her friend to close the door. Zuniga and her friend struggled to close the door as Carson pushed from the outside. Zuniga and her friend got the door closed, and Carson walked away. Zuniga saw Carson hit the window of a blue car as he walked by it. Zuniga also saw Carson walk back and forth between trailers. Id. at 74. Later, Zuniga saw that the car window was scratched where Carson had hit it. Id. at 73.

[963 N.E.2d 673]

That same morning, Jorge Hernandez, who lived in a nearby trailer in the same trailer park, saw an unknown man, later determined to be Carson, walk by his trailer twice. Hernandez went outside to get a better look at who it was. Carson saw Hernandez and asked him if he was “Richard.” Id. at 29. Carson approached Hernandez and continued to ask him if he was “Richard.” Id. When Carson came too close, Hernandez pushed him away, and they began to fight. Carson continued to ask Hernandez if he was Richard. During the fight, Hernandez felt something “poking” him in the abdomen. Id. Hernandez pulled Carson's jacket over Carson's head and realized that Carson had a knife in his hand. Hernandez backed away from Carson and told him to calm down. Hernandez ran away in fear, and Carson threw the knife at him. When Hernandez realized that Carson no longer had the knife, he turned around and went back toward Carson. Carson retrieved his knife.

At about 10:00 a.m., Westfield Police Officer Joshua Harrell was dispatched to the trailer park. As Officer Harrell pulled into the trailer park, he saw Carson and Hernandez fighting and then voluntarily separate. Officer Harrell got out of his car and saw Hernandez pointing at Carson. “[A]t that point [Carson] started to run and [Officer Harrell] gave chase.” Id. at 10. During the chase, Officer Harrell commanded Carson to drop the knife. Initially, Carson did not “acknowledge [Officer Harrell] in any way.” Id. Officer Harrell took out his firearm and yelled that he would shoot Carson if Carson did not drop the knife. Carson dropped the knife near a tree but continued to run until he tripped in some gravel. Officer Harrell put his firearm away and grabbed his taser. He commanded Carson to show his hands, which were underneath his body. Carson “kinda turned towards” Officer Harrell, but Officer Harrell “still couldn't see his hands so he deployed his taser.” Id. at 11.

Westfield Police Officer Greg Marlow arrived to assist. Officer Marlow saw Carson lying on the ground. Another police officer asked Carson for his identification, and Carson did not comply. Officer Marlow spoke briefly to Carson, who asked for an attorney.

Carson was taken to the police department, where he submitted to a recorded interview. During the interview, Carson repeatedly stated that Isaac, from the movie Children of the Corn, would kill kids and drag them to the cornfield, and that he, Carson, tried to kill a baby and drag it to a cornfield like Isaac in Children of the Corn. State's Ex. 33–A.2 He repeatedly stated that what Isaac did was “insane,” “crazy,” and “stupid,” and that he, Carson, was not insane. Id. But he also repeatedly said that he was doing “stupid stuff” that Isaac would have done. Id. He repeatedly stated that he was going to “slice” or “cut” a “kid” or a “baby” because that is what Isaac would have done, but “[he] couldn't do that, [he] couldn't stab a baby.” Id. He mentioned several times that there were black birds that were driving him crazy. Carson also stated that “they” sent him texts and referred to “the little trick they played about looking up this stuff.” Id. He said that he had to go back to the Bible days for “ Children of the Corn stuff,” and “I just know how to read good and figure stuff out ... that's why they made me do it.” Id. He said, “They told me my name was Luke, and it all came down to me and my bloodline. I started to look through stuff and it did. I'm in the Bible for some

[963 N.E.2d 674]

reason. I don't know why. I'm an atheist.” Id. Carson did remember fighting with Hernandez. Carson said that he fought Hernandez because he thought Hernandez was calling the police. Toward the end of the interview, Carson said that he thought he cut the baby. Finally, he said that he wanted to talk about the “big picture” and that he needed “the pieces of paper and the Bible” to show the police. Id.

On April 17, 2009, the State charged Carson with two counts of class A felony attempted murder, two counts of class C felony battery by means of a deadly weapon, one count of class B felony burglary, and one count of class D felony resisting law enforcement. On April 24, 2009, Carson filed a notice of insanity defense and a notice of incompetency. On April 27, 2009, the trial court entered an order appointing two psychiatrists, Drs. Martin Groff and Ned Masbaum, to examine Carson to assess his competency to stand trial and determine whether he was insane at the time of the crimes; that is, whether he had a “severely abnormal mental condition that grossly and demonstrably impair [ed his] perception” and rendered him “unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct at the time of the [alleged] offenses.” Ind.Code § 35–41–3–6.

Dr. Groff and Dr. Masbaum independently examined Carson on May 2 and 6, 2009, respectively. On May 7, 2009, the doctors performed a joint examination of Carson, lasting seventy-five minutes. Both doctors reviewed the probable cause affidavit. Dr. Groff also reviewed Carson's jail records. Dr. Groff's report indicated that on April 21, 2009, Dr. Brett Presley described Carson's thinking as “delusional and grossly disorganized” and prescribed Thorazine.3 Def.'s Ex. B at 4. On May 6, 2009, Carson was put in a padded cell because he was hitting his head against the wall and had tried to put a plastic bag over his head. Id. Dr. Groff concluded that Carson had a psychiatric disorder that substantially disturbed his thinking and rendered him incompetent to stand trial. However, due to Carson's confused mental state at the time of the exam, Dr. Groff was unable to determine whether Carson had a severely abnormal mental condition that rendered him unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct at the time of the alleged offenses. Id. at 7.

In his report, Dr. Masbaum diagnosed Carson with a psychotic disorder and concluded that Carson was mentally ill as defined by Indiana Code Section 35–36–1–1 4 and that he was not competent to stand trial at that time. 5 Def.'s Ex. A. at 4. Dr. Masbaum was also unable to assess Carson's

[963 N.E.2d 675]

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Sanchez v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 14, 2013
    ...is an affirmative defense for which the defendant carries the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.” Carson v. State, 963 N.E.2d 670, 676 (Ind.Ct.App.2012) (citing Ind.Code § 35–41–4–1), trans. denied. The State need not disprove insanity. Thompson v. State, 804 N.E.2d 1146, 1......
  • Barcroft v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • December 19, 2017
    ...would conclude that the trial court did not err in finding that Barcroft failed to prove her insanity defense. See Carson v. State , 963 N.E.2d 670, 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (holding that the evidence supported a reasonable inference that defendant appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduc......
  • Boxley v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • October 8, 2015
    ...In addition, breaking is established by showing that even slight force was used to gain unauthorized entry. Carson v. State, 963 N.E.2d 670, 683 (Ind.Ct.App.2012), trans. denied. [11] The burden of proving each element of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt rests with the State. Ge......
  • Galateanu v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 13, 2023
    ...... fact to be a valid defense, three elements must be satisfied:. (1) the mistake must be honest and reasonable; (2) the. mistake must be about a matter of fact; and (3) the mistake. must negate the culpability required to commit the crime. Carson v. State, 963 N.E.2d 670, 683-84 (Ind.Ct.App. 2012), trans. denied. After the State has made a. prima facie case of guilt, the defendant bears the burden of. establishing an evidentiary predicate of his claimed mistaken. belief of fact. J.M.J. v. State, 38 N.E.3d 686, 692. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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