Gibson v. State, No. 55S05-9807-CR-00386

Docket NºNo. 55S05-9807-CR-00386
Citation702 N.E.2d 707
Case DateDecember 07, 1998
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 707

702 N.E.2d 707
Michael A. GIBSON Defendant-Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee.
No. 55S05-9807-CR-00386.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Dec. 7, 1998.

Page 709

Brian H. Williams, Martinsville, for Defendant-Appellant.

Jeffrey A. Modisett, Attorney General, James A. Garrard, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

ON PETITION TO TRANSFER

DICKSON, Justice.

The defendant, Michael A. Gibson, was convicted of attempted murder, 1 two counts of conspiracy to commit murder, 2 and burglary. 3 Of the eight issues presented on appeal, the Court of Appeals found one issue dispositive, reversed on that issue, and addressed four other issues likely to be contested upon retrial. Gibson v. State, 694 N.E.2d 748 (Ind.Ct.App.1997). We granted transfer to address the issue that the Court of Appeals found compelled reversal. We summarily affirm the other issues resolved by the Court of Appeals, address the remaining issues presented by the defendant on appeal, and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We now address the following claims of trial court error: (1) responding to a jury request for exhibits, during deliberations, without consulting the parties; (2) refusing to admonish the jury following a sustained objection; (3) convicting of attempted murder and burglary, in violation of double jeopardy; and (4) imposing an improper and unreasonable sentence. 4

1. Jury Request During Deliberations

During its deliberations, the jury sent a note to the trial court that asked, "Can we see State's Evidence Exhibits Twelve through Fifteen, Seventeen through Twenty, Twenty-Two through Thirty-Three, Thirty-Four through Forty-One?" Record at 1581. Before consulting the parties, the trial court sent to the jury all of the exhibits admitted during the trial. The defendant claimed that sending the evidence to the jury without consulting the parties violated Indiana Code section 34-1-21-6, and the Court of Appeals reversed on that basis. Gibson v. State, 694 N.E.2d 748, 753 (Ind.Ct.App.1998). We disagree.

In Bouye v. State, 699 N.E.2d 620 (Ind.1998), this Court, confronted with conflicting interpretations of the statute by various panels of the Court of Appeals, approved the line of cases that held that the statute's protections are only triggered upon an express showing of disagreement among the jurors. Id. at 627. A mere request to review evidence does not implicitly show disagreement. Id. In the present case, the note constitutes a request to view the evidence, but does not express a disagreement between the members of the jury. Nothing in the record indicates that the jury was in disagreement about the evidence. We find no error under the statute. 5

Page 710

2. Refusal to Admonish the Jury

During the trial, the defendant objected to a codefendant's testimony regarding the defendant's possible gang involvement, and the trial court sustained the defendant's objection. The defendant also requested an admonishment, but the trial court refused.

Trial court decisions regarding admonishments to the jury are reviewed only for an abuse of discretion. Ballard v. State, 438 N.E.2d 707, 709 (Ind.1982). An abuse of discretion exists only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Joyner v. State, 678 N.E.2d 386, 390 (Ind.1997). Applying the abuse of discretion standard to the facts of this case, the trial court's decision not to admonish the jury was not clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. A contemporaneous admonishment to the jury concerning the excluded evidence may have posed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 practice notes
  • Crain v. State, No. 29S00-9803-CR-180.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 20 Octubre 2000
    ...err in refusing to give the defendant's tendered instruction regarding the voluntariness of his confession), overruled on other grounds, 702 N.E.2d 707 C Defendant also broadly contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because "trial counsel failed to communicate adequatel......
  • Willey v. State, No. 06S00-9712-CR-654.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 17 Junio 1999
    ...improperly applies an aggravator, but other valid aggravators exist, a sentence enhancement may still be upheld. See Gibson v. State, 702 N.E.2d 707, 710 (Ind.1998) (citing Blanche v. State, 690 N.E.2d 709, 715 (Ind.1998)). In light of the significant unchallenged aggravating circumstances,......
  • Mitchell v. State, No. 49S00-9803-CR-163.
    • United States
    • 18 Abril 2000
    ...an aggravating circumstance. However, a single aggravating circumstance is adequate to justify a sentence enhancement. Gibson v. State, 702 N.E.2d 707, 710 (Ind.1998); Williams v. State, 690 N.E.2d 162, 172 (Ind.1997). When a sentencing court improperly applies an aggravating circumstance, ......
  • Guzman v. State, No. 54A01–1209–CR–409.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 15 Abril 2013
    ...single aggravating factor is sufficient to warrant an enhanced sentence. Morgan v. State, 829 N.E.2d 12, 15 (Ind.2005); Gibson v. State, 702 N.E.2d 707, 710 (Ind.1998); Williams v. State, 690 N.E.2d 162, 172 (Ind.1997); Rembert v. State, 832 N.E.2d 1130, 1133 (Ind.Ct.App.2005); Bennett v. S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
29 cases
  • Crain v. State, No. 29S00-9803-CR-180.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 20 Octubre 2000
    ...err in refusing to give the defendant's tendered instruction regarding the voluntariness of his confession), overruled on other grounds, 702 N.E.2d 707 C Defendant also broadly contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because "trial counsel failed to communicate adequatel......
  • Willey v. State, No. 06S00-9712-CR-654.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 17 Junio 1999
    ...improperly applies an aggravator, but other valid aggravators exist, a sentence enhancement may still be upheld. See Gibson v. State, 702 N.E.2d 707, 710 (Ind.1998) (citing Blanche v. State, 690 N.E.2d 709, 715 (Ind.1998)). In light of the significant unchallenged aggravating circumstances,......
  • Mitchell v. State, No. 49S00-9803-CR-163.
    • United States
    • 18 Abril 2000
    ...an aggravating circumstance. However, a single aggravating circumstance is adequate to justify a sentence enhancement. Gibson v. State, 702 N.E.2d 707, 710 (Ind.1998); Williams v. State, 690 N.E.2d 162, 172 (Ind.1997). When a sentencing court improperly applies an aggravating circumstance, ......
  • Guzman v. State, No. 54A01–1209–CR–409.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 15 Abril 2013
    ...single aggravating factor is sufficient to warrant an enhanced sentence. Morgan v. State, 829 N.E.2d 12, 15 (Ind.2005); Gibson v. State, 702 N.E.2d 707, 710 (Ind.1998); Williams v. State, 690 N.E.2d 162, 172 (Ind.1997); Rembert v. State, 832 N.E.2d 1130, 1133 (Ind.Ct.App.2005); Bennett v. S......
  • 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