Hartman v. State

• Decision Date: 07 August 1996
• Docket Number: No. 18SOO-9501-CR-42,18SOO-9501-CR-42
• Citation: 669 N.E.2d 959
• Parties: Joseph HARTMAN, Defendant-Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 959

669 N.E.2d 959

Joseph HARTMAN, Defendant-Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee.

No. 18SOO-9501-CR-42

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Aug. 7, 1996.

Raymond A. Brassart, Brassart Law Offices, Muncie, for Defendant-Appellant.

Pamela Carter, Attorney General, James A. Joven, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Office of the Attorney General, Indiana Government Center, Indianapolis, for Appellee

SELBY, Justice.

Appellant Joseph Hartman appeals his conviction for Murder; Robbery, a Class A felony; and Conspiracy to Commit Robbery, a Class A felony. The trial court merged the Robbery conviction with the Conspiracy conviction, and sentenced Hartman to sixty years on the Murder conviction, and fifty years on the Conspiracy to Commit Robbery conviction. The court ordered Appellant to serve these sentences consecutively, for a total sentence of 110 years.

Appellant raises two issues on appeal. First, Appellant challenges the trial court's decisions regarding several jury instructions. Secondly, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. Because, with these issues, Appellant raises no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Appellant's convictions arose out of the following events. On June 15, 1993, Mark Sekse and victim David Turner were travelling to Liberty, Indiana on a miniature golf outing. While in transit, Turner received several calls to his beeper from Appellant Hartman. It seems that Turner was engaged in the sale of pounds of marijuana. Appellant Hartman advised the victim Turner that Appellant would like to purchase ten pounds of the contraband. In response to Appellant's purchase order, Turner and Sekse, marijuana in hand, travelled to a Budget Motel in Muncie, Indiana, where they contacted Appellant. Appellant arrived, a disagreement ensued, and Appellant and Turner left the Motel in Sekse's car.

Meanwhile, Appellant's confederates were lying in wait at a Muncie house. Certain members of this group had conspired with Appellant to commit a battery upon Turner, steal his marijuana and money, and leave town. When Turner and Appellant arrived, one confederate struck Turner's head with a wooden table leg, and a second confederate taped Turner's hands behind his back. After the group sufficiently subdued Turner, a third confederate placed a plastic bag over Turner's head, suffocating him. Appellant and two of his cohorts disposed of Turner's body in a field. Appellant was charged with and convicted of Murder, Robbery, and Conspiracy to Commit Robbery. Appellant now brings this direct appeal.

Appellant first argues that the trial court improperly refused two final jury instructions which he submitted, his Proposed Instructions Seven and Nine. When reviewing the refusal of tendered instructions, we undertake a three part analysis, first determining whether the tendered instruction correctly states the law. If so, we next determine whether there was evidence in the record to support the proffered instruction. If such evidence is present, we finally determine whether the substance of the tendered instruction was covered by other instructions. Stahl v. State, 616 N.E.2d 9 (Ind.1993).

Appellant claims that the trial court erroneously refused his Proposed Instruction Number Seven, which provided:

A person who aids, induces, or causes another to commit an offense is just as guilty of that offense as if he committed it himself.

You may find that Defendant [is] guilty of robbery[,] conspiracy or murder if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecutor has proved that another person actually committed the offense with which the Defendant is charged and that the Defendant aided; [sic] induced or caused that person to commit the offense.

The first requirements [sic] is that you find that another person has committed the crime charged. Obviously, no one can be convicted of aiding[,] inducing or causing the criminal acts of another if no crime was committed by the other person in the first place. But if you do find that a crime was committed, then you must consider whether the Defendant aided, induced or caused the commission of the crime. In order to aid, induce or cause another to commit a crime, it is necessary that the Defendant knowingly or intentionally associate himself in some way with the crime and that he knowingly or intentionally seek by some act to help make[ ] the crime succeed.

The mere presence of a Defendant where a crime is being committed, even coupled with knowledge by the Defendant that a crime is being committed, or the mere acquiescence by a Defendant in the criminal conduct of others, even with guilty knowledge, is not sufficient to establish aiding, inducing or causing a crime. You must not convict the defendant of aiding, inducing or causing an offense unless you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant knowingly or intentionally participated in some conduct of an affirmative nature.

(R. at 124).

The trial court properly refused this instruction, because it addressed points of law already covered in other instructions. Instruction Twenty-Six provided a more concise presentation of the offense of aiding, inducing, or causing:

Aiding, inducing or causing an offense is defined by statute as follows:

A person who knowingly or intentionally aids, induces, or causes another person to commit an offense commits that offense, even if the other person has not been prosecuted for the offense, has not been convicted of the offense, or has been acquitted of the offense.

(R. at 204).

Other instructions addressed other points of law contained in Appellant's Proposed Instruction Number Seven. For example, Final Instruction Twenty-Seven advised the jury as to the State's burden of proof in demonstrating that a defendant is guilty of aiding or inducing. (R. at 205). Final Instruction Twenty-Eight listed factors that the jury could use to infer a defendant's participation in a crime. (R. at 205). Final Instruction Twenty-Eight explicitly stated that "[m]ere presence at the scene of the crime is not sufficient to allow an inference of participation." (R. at 207). The court's final instructions addressed the substance of Appellant's Proposed Instruction Number Seven. No error occurred in the trial court's decision to refuse the instruction.

Appellant next contends that the trial court erred in refusing his Proposed Instruction Number Nine, which provided:

You have heard testimony from several state's witnesses who have received immunity. That testimony was given in exchange for a promise by the State of Indiana that they would not be prosecuted; that their testimony will not be used against them.

In evaluating their testimony, you should consider whether that testimony may have been influenced by the State's promise of immunity given in exchange for it, and you should consider that testimony with greater caution than that of other witnesses.

(R. at 127) (emphasis added).

When the trial court initially refused this proposed instruction, Appellant objected. (R. at 1322-26). The prosecution then noted that the proposed instruction mischaracterized the State's agreement with the witnesses. The State had extended to the witnesses only a limited immunity, a form of use and derivative use immunity, promising only that, if the witnesses were subject to a subsequent prosecution, the testimony that the witnesses gave at Appellant's trial, and evidence obtained derivatively from that testimony would not be used against them. Appellant's Proposed Instruction Number Nine advises the jury not only that these witnesses had the more limited use immunity, but that these witnesses had also received a form of transactional immunity, i.e., in exchange for the witnesses' testimony those witnesses "would not be prosecuted " for charges arising out of the transaction or occurrence to which their testimony refers. These are factually very different types of immunity, use-and-derivative-use immunity perhaps encouraging witnesses to be candid and forthcoming with their testimony and, thus, limiting the evidence available at that witnesses' subsequent trial. These witnesses did not have transactional immunity from prosecution for their acts in these crimes. Appellant's instruction advises the jury that the witnesses did obtain such immunity. Appellant's Proposed Instruction Number Nine materially misstates the nature of the immunity the witnesses enjoyed; the trial court properly declined...