Conner v. State
| Citation | 580 N.E.2d 214 |
| Decision Date | 24 October 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 49S00-8904-CR-00314,49S00-8904-CR-00314 |
| Parties | Kevin CONNER, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
L. Craig Turner, Boberschmidt Miller O'Bryan & Turner, P.A., Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Arthur Thaddeus Perry, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Defendant-Appellant Conner was convicted of three counts of murder by a Marion Superior Court jury on October 7, 1988. Subsequently, the jury recommended that he suffer the penalty of death for such murders. The trial court accepted the jury's recommendation and sentenced Conner to death for two of the three murders. This direct appeal followed.
Conner alleges that 15 errors occurred prior to, during, and subsequent to the trial. Conner alleged that the court acted improperly in the following instances:
(1) Denying individual sequestered jury voir dire.
(2) Deleting three questions from defendant's tendered jury questionnaire.
(3) Denying defendant's motion to dismiss the death penalty count and sentencing defendant to death.
(4) Admitting defendant's confession.
(5) Denying defendant's motion for severance.
(6) Admitting evidence of defendant's prior threats and acts of violence against one of the victims.
(7) Admitting evidence of defendant's earlier possession of weapons.
(8) Admitting evidence of defendant's nicknames.
(9) Instructing the jury of their advisory role in sentencing.
(10) Denying defendant's motion for continuance of the sentencing hearing.
(11) Ruling that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
(12) Ruling that the evidence was sufficient to support the imposition of the death penalty.
(13) Ordering defendant committed to the Department of Corrections between sentencing and the court's ruling on the motion to correct errors.
(14) Permitting the State to file an amended information.
(15) Denying funds to the defendant for a polygraph examination.
Having reviewed the transcript in light of the alleged errors, we affirm Conner's convictions for murder and sentence of death.
The facts in support of the convictions are that during the early morning hours of January 26, 1988, Conner, Tony Moore, Bruce Voge, and Steve Wentland were drinking in Tony Moore's house. Bruce Voge remained at the house while Conner, Moore, and Wentland went for a drive in Wentland's automobile. Wentland drove with Moore in the passenger seat and Conner in the back. During the drive, an argument began which resulted in Moore striking Wentland with Conner's knife, causing Wentland to abandon the car and run. Conner, armed with the knife, pursued Wentland on foot while Moore took over the driving of the car and ran Wentland down. While Wentland was down, Conner struck him several times with his fists and stabbed him multiple times with the knife, killing him.
Conner and Moore drove from the scene and went to City Enterprises, Conner's place of employment. There, they woke up Conner's employer and were allowed access to the warehouse area. They began arguing about what had occurred and what future course of action to take and, during the argument, Conner, who had obtained possession of his sawed-off shotgun, shot and killed Moore. The shotgun blasts awakened Conner's employer who confronted Conner as he left the warehouse area. Conner told his employer that he "had to off Tony." Conner left the warehouse and returned to Tony Moore's house where he shot and killed Bruce Voge while Voge was lying on the couch in the living room.
Following these three killings, Conner enlisted the help of various friends to dispose of Moore's body, abandon Wentland's automobile, and leave town. He was apprehended in Texas and returned to Indiana to face charges of murder.
Conner urges that the trial court erred in denying his request for individualized, sequestered voir dire of prospective jurors. However, he does not say how, specifically, he was prejudiced by the failure to hold individualized jury voir dire. Instead, he conjectures that conducting voir dire in the presence of other jurors and the press inhibits openness and honesty and, thus, may adversely affect the jury selection process.
This Court consistently has rejected the notion that individualized, sequestered voir dire is required in any case, death penalty cases included. Lowery v. State (1989), Ind., 547 N.E.2d 1046, 1049, cert. denied (1990), --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 217, 112 L.Ed.2d 176; Woods v. State (1989), Ind., 547 N.E.2d 772, 791, petition for cert. filed Jan. 1, 1991. The trial court, of course, retains discretion to adopt such a procedure should special circumstances surface to so indicate. Here, however, there is no evidence in the record of any highly unusual or potentially damaging circumstances to warrant such sequestered voir dire.
Conner argues that the trial court erred in deleting three questions from his tendered jury questionnaire which the trial court submitted to the jurors to be completed prior to conducting voir dire examination. These questions addressed the prospective jurors' attitudes toward the role and responsibility of judges, prosecutors and defense counsel; the jurors' beliefs as to the most important institutions in our society; and, the prospective jurors' attitudes toward the law that defendants are accorded many constitutional rights. Conner asserts that these matters are "most The trial court has broad discretionary power to regulate the form and substance of voir dire. We will reverse only upon a showing of a manifest abuse of such discretion and a denial of a fair trial to a defendant. Games v. State (1989), Ind., 535 N.E.2d 530, 538, cert. denied (1989), 493 U.S. 874, 110 S.Ct. 205, 107 L.Ed.2d 158. No such showing has been made in the instant case and a review of the record fails to show a denial of a fair trial to Conner.
critical" to determining the jurors' attitudes about the death penalty. He does not argue, however, that defense counsel did not fully explore prospective jurors' attitudes toward the death penalty. In fact, the record clearly shows that counsel conducted a lengthy and complete voir dire examination of all potential jurors and received direct and straightforward responses.
Conner alleges that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the death penalty count and in imposing the sentence of death. He argues that the Indiana death penalty statute is unconstitutional under both the Indiana and United States constitutions. He premises his constitutional arguments on five separate grounds. These grounds and our responses to them follow.
death penalty count renders the penalty arbitrary
and capricious and, therefore, cruel and unusual.
Under our State's system of criminal justice, the prosecutor always has been allowed broad discretion in representing the people of the State in determining what crimes to prosecute and in requesting the imposition of various sentences. We reject the argument that the legislature's continued placement of such discretion on the prosecutor to determine which cases warrant the request for the imposition of the death penalty renders the penalty unconstitutional. Coleman v. State (1990), Ind., 558 N.E.2d 1059, 1065, cert. denied (1991), --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 2912, 115 L.Ed.2d 1075; Games, 535 N.E.2d at 537. There is nothing in this record which leads us to believe that the prosecutor abused his discretion in seeking the death penalty for a triple murder.
cruel and unusual.
Here, the jury recommended that the sentence of death be imposed on Conner. The judge did not override a recommendation against the death penalty. The argument, therefore, is not relevant to the facts of this case.
aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors
renders the statute unconstitutional.
The Indiana death penalty statute provides that the jury shall consider specifically-identified mitigating factors and further provides that the jury may consider as mitigating factors "any other circumstances appropriate for consideration." This allows a defendant wide latitude in presenting evidence that might pursuade a jury to recommend against the death penalty even though such evidence would not be relevant to the enumerated factors set forth in the statute. A jury, which has just heard the evidence of guilt or innocence during the guilt phase of the trial, is well equipped to weigh aggravating versus mitigating factors in determining whether to recommend for or against the imposition of the death penalty. We have previously rejected the claim that the statute does not sufficiently guide the jury in weighing such factors. Fleenor v. State (1987), Ind., 514 N.E.2d 80, 91-92, cert. denied (1988), 488 U.S. 872, 109 S.Ct. 189, 102 L.Ed.2d 158. There is nothing presented in this case which causes us to now accept such an argument.
or require comparative proportionality review.
homicides which are eligible for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wrinkles v. State
...e.g., Matheney v. State, 688 N.E.2d 883 (Ind.1997); Prowell v. State, 687 N.E.2d 563 (Ind.1997); Baird, 604 N.E.2d 1170; Conner v. State, 580 N.E.2d 214 (Ind.1991). Conclusion Defendant's convictions and death sentence are SHEPARD, C.J., and DICKSON, SELBY and BOEHM, JJ., concur. 1 Ind.Code......
-
Lowery v. Anderson
...the jury that they were relieved of concern because the ultimate responsibility rested with the judge or this Court. See Conner v. State, 580 N.E.2d 214 (Ind.1991). As was the case in Burris and Fleenor, the jury here was simply informed that the responsibility for sentencing rests with the......
-
State v. Bible
...did not materialize. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's request. See, e.g., Conner v. State, 580 N.E.2d 214, 217 (Ind.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 946, 112 S.Ct. 1501, 117 L.Ed.2d 640 (1992); Hansen v. State, 592 So.2d 114, 126 (Miss.1991), cert. deni......
-
Conner v. Anderson
...explained" in this Entry, his petition must be denied. I. Conner's convictions were affirmed on direct appeal in Conner v. State, 580 N.E.2d 214, 217 (Ind.1991)(Conner I.). The trial court's subsequent denial of Conner's petition for post-conviction relief was affirmed on appeal in Conner v......