Fields v. State

• Decision Date: 09 May 1997
• Docket Number: No. 02S00-9504-CR-422,02S00-9504-CR-422
• Parties: Jamarcus L. FIELDS, Defendant-Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 1315

679 N.E.2d 1315

Jamarcus L. FIELDS, Defendant-Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee.

No. 02S00-9504-CR-422.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

May 9, 1997.

Gregory L. Fumarolo, Public Defender, Fort Wayne, for Defendant-Appellant.

Pamela Carter, Attorney General and Jodi Kathryn Rowe, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

SELBY, Justice.

A jury convicted Appellant Jamarcus Fields of murder. In this direct appeal, Appellant raises several issues: 1) Did the selection of the jury venire from voter registration lists violate Appellant's right to an impartial jury? 2) Did the trial court err in allowing the testimony of a witness whose name the State did not timely disclose? 3) Did the court err in finding Appellant's confessions voluntary and admitting them into evidence? 4) Did Appellant receive effective assistance of counsel at the interrogation and trial phases? 5) Did the record contain evidence sufficient to support the conviction? 6) Did the trial court err in refusing Appellant's tendered reckless homicide instruction? We answer the fourth and fifth issues affirmatively and the others negatively and, therefore, affirm Appellant's conviction.

FACTS

The evidence at trial most favorable to the State shows that on the evening of November 27, 1993, Appellant and his friends, Rodney and Steve Brooks, followed the victim, Leslie Woodson, and his friends, Sergio Martinez and Eli Medina, to the home of Martinez. The two groups of friends were arguing over gang affiliations. Once at the house, Rodney Brooks and Appellant stood in the street while Woodson and Martinez's sister, Julia Martinez, stood on the porch. Appellant shot Woodson. Sergio Martinez watched the incident from inside the house through a window. Additional facts will be set forth below as necessary.

DISCUSSION

I. Jury Selection

The jury venire was drawn from voter registration lists. Appellant's trial counsel objected to the racial composition of the venire on the grounds that it contained only one female African-American. On appeal, Appellant claims that the trial court erred in overruling his objection and that his right to a fair and impartial jury was violated. Appellant bases his jury selection claim on the Fourteenth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution. We find that a jury venire randomly selected from voter registration lists did not violate Appellant's right to an impartial jury. ¹

The Fourteenth Amendment right to due process requires that the State satisfy the Sixth Amendment requirement of an impartial jury trial. Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 526-28, 95 S.Ct. 692, 695-97, 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975). The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a jury chosen from a representative cross section of the community. Bradley, 649 N.E.2d 100; Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. at 528, 95 S.Ct. at 696-97. "[T]he mere absence of blacks from the venire does not establish a violation of constitutional rights." Harvey, 621 N.E.2d at 365. To make a prima facie challenge to a selection process a defendant must meet the Duren requirements. Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364, 99 S.Ct. 664, 668, 58 L.Ed.2d 579, 587 (1979); Bradley, 649 N.E.2d at 104. The requirements are:

(1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a "distinctive" group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process.

Duren, 439 U.S. at 364, 99 S.Ct. at 668. Indiana has expressed approval of the proper use of voter registration lists, under Duren, for the selection of prospective jurors. Bradley, 649 N.E.2d at 103-04.

Clearly, African-Americans constitute a distinctive group in the community. The record contains no evidence, however, that the number of African-American men in the venires from which juries are selected is not proportional to their number in the community in which this case was tried. It simply shows that only one African-American woman was in this particular venire. Additionally, the record contains no evidence of systematic exclusion of African-American men from the jury venire. Thus, the selection of the jury from voter registration lists did not violate the Appellant's Fourteenth and Sixth Amendments right to an impartial jury.

II. Discovery Order Violation

Rodney Brooks accompanied Appellant on the evening of the shooting. Brooks testified in statements to police and at his Appellant argues that the trial court erred by allowing Page's testimony because the State did not disclose her name until the day of her appearance. The court's discovery order stated:

deposition that he did not have a gun that evening and that Appellant had fired two shots. At trial, Brooks related a contradictory story. Brooks testified that he did have a gun and fired it before Appellant fired one shot. In response to this change in testimony, the State decided to call a probation officer, Melinda Page. Page could testify that Brooks was willing to perjure himself for Appellant's sake.

The Court being duly advised in the premises now finds that pursuant to local Criminal Rule 13, the State of Indiana is ordered to furnish to Defendant within thirty (30) days from this date [January 14, 1994], the following discovery:

1. The names, last known addresses, dates of birth, and social security numbers of persons whom the State intends to call as witnesses ...

The Court further finds that the order herein shall be continuing and that respective counsel shall provide discoverable information to opposing counsel promptly, and including, the trial date.

(R. at 28.) The State violated the discovery order by calling Page. Appellant requested that the court not allow Page to testify. Appellant claimed that Brook's testimony did not surprise the State and that the State acted in bad faith since the prosecutor knew that he might need to call Page as a witness a week before the trial. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in ruling otherwise. We find the trial court committed no error by allowing Page's testimony.

The trial court has discretion to appropriately sanction a party for failure to abide by a discovery order. Carter v. State, 512 N.E.2d 158, 170 (Ind.1987). Only if the court abuses this discretion will we reverse the court's decision. Id.

Indiana Trial Rule 37(B)(2) provides for sanctions for failure to obey a discovery order and applies in criminal cases. IND. TRIAL RULE 37(B)(2); Glover v. State, 441 N.E.2d 1360, 1363 (Ind.1982); Lund v. State, 264 Ind. 428, 345 N.E.2d 826, 829 (1976). Courts generally remedy a situation where a party fails to disclose a witness by providing a continuance rather than by disallowing the testimony. Wiseheart v. State, 491 N.E.2d 985, 988 (Ind.1986); Lund, 345 N.E.2d at 829. When determining the proper remedy, a court must focus on whether the State acted in bad faith and whether the testimony will substantially prejudice the defendant. Carter, 512 N.E.2d at 170-71; Wiseheart, 491 N.E.2d at 988; Lund, 345 N.E.2d at 829. Also, a court may consider whether the State is responding to a surprise at trial. See Gibbs v. State, 538 N.E.2d 937, 942 (Ind.1989); Wiseheart, 491 N.E.2d at 990; Collins v. State, 549 N.E.2d 89, 93 (Ind.Ct.App.1990).

The trial court allowed Page's testimony because the court did not find the State acted in bad faith. Rather the court found that Brook's testimony surprised the State and made it necessary for the State to call Page. Before making a final ruling to allow the testimony, the court allowed Appellant's counsel to speak with Page. The court also offered the possibility of a continuance after Page's testimony, if necessary. Additionally, Appellant's trial counsel cross-examined Page. We do not find clear error in the court's finding that the State acted out of genuine surprise. Thus, the court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the testimony.

III. Defendant's Statements

On the advice of his attorney, Appellant gave two statements to Officer Rogers on November 30, 1993. Prior to trial, Appellant moved to suppress the statements on the grounds that they were not voluntarily given. The motion was denied and both statements were admitted at trial. Appellant challenges the court's finding of voluntariness and the admission of these statements at trial. ²

A court may not admit involuntarily given statements into evidence. The trial court must make a determination about the voluntariness of a statement by considering the totality of the circumstances. Warner v. State, 579 N.E.2d 1307, 1309 (Ind.1991). The court safeguards that the defendant did not give the confession "through inducement, violence, threats or other improper influences so as to overcome the free will of the accused." Collins v. State, 509 N.E.2d 827 (Ind.1987). Promises of leniency render a statement involuntary, but vague statements that the defendant benefits by cooperating and telling the real story do not constitute sufficient promises. Collins, 509 N.E.2d at 830. The State must prove the voluntariness of a statement beyond a reasonable doubt. Johnson v. State, 513 N.E.2d 650 (Ind.1987).

When reviewing a lower court's determination that a defendant voluntarily gave a statement, this Court must find that the determination clearly appears in the record. Light v. State, 547 N.E.2d 1073, 1077 (Ind.1989). This Court reviews the determination to ensure substantial evidence supported the finding of voluntariness. Warner, 579 N.E.2d at 1307; Collins, 509 N.E.2d at 831.

The record contains substantial evidence to support the finding that, based on the totality of the circumstances, Appellant voluntarily gave his statements. Appellant willingly gave his statements upon the advice of counsel. Smith testified that he inferred, based on prior...