Jackson v. Duckworth

Decision Date28 October 1982
Docket NumberNo. S81-431.,S81-431.
CitationJackson v. Duckworth, 549 F.Supp. 1280 (N.D. Ind. 1982)
PartiesRobert L. JACKSON, Petitioner, v. Jack R. DUCKWORTH, Warden, and the Indiana Attorney General, Respondents.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana

Robert L. Jackson, pro se.

Bruce L. Kamplain, Deputy Atty. Gen., Linley Pearson, Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, Ind., for respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SHARP, Chief Judge.

This case is presently before the Court on a petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.Pursuant to Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this memorandum of decision and order constitutes this Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The petitioner, Robert L. Jackson, is an inmate at the Indiana State Prison at Michigan City, Indiana, where he is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment for second-degree murder.Petitioner's conviction by a jury in state court was unanimously affirmed on appeal by the Supreme Court of the State of Indiana on March 31, 1980.SeeJackson v. State, Ind.,402 N.E.2d 947(1980).Petitioner raised four issues on his direct appeal in the state courts, and now raises those same four issues in this application for a writ of habeas corpus.Each of these issues will be addressed in its turn.

As his first ground for seeking habeas relief in this Court, petitioner contends that there was insufficient evidence presented at his trial to sustain a verdict of guilty, arguing that he was not mentally responsible for his actions.Where questions relating to the sufficiency of evidence are raised in a federal habeas petition, the standard to which the federal habeas court is to adhere is "whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt."Jackson v. Virginia,443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560(1979)(emphasis in original).Thus, the role of the federal court in a habeas proceeding is not to reweigh the evidence as a de novo trier of fact, but rather to review the evidence presented in a light most favorable to the prosecution.Id.Bearing this standard in mind, this Court now turns to a recitation of the salient facts in this case.

Mrs. Jeannie Jackson, the mother of the petitioner, testified at trial that, on the date in question, September 18, 1977, she, the petitioner, three of her other children, two grandchildren, and the victim, Richard Johnson, all lived at 119 Elsworth Street in Gary, Indiana.Record, 108-109.Mrs. Jackson related that, on the morning of September 18, 1977, the petitioner awakened her and told her that the basement of the residence was flooded with fuel oil.Record, 110.The basement was in fact wet with rain water.Id.Noting that the petitioner"was acting stranger than he had been," Mrs. Jackson went next door to her sister's apartment to telephone for a doctor.Id.While she was waiting for the doctor to return her call, the decedent, Richard Johnson, telephoned to say that he was going outside to the filling station for cigarettes and asked whether Mrs. Jackson wanted any.Record, 112.While Mrs. Jackson was standing on her sister's porch, she heard a scuffle from inside her own apartment.Record, 113.Almost immediately, Mrs. Jackson's eldest daughter, Debra, ran out of the apartment and told Mrs. Jackson that Mr. Johnson was lying on the floor.Id.The petitioner then emerged from the apartment with a hammer in his hand and entered the Gates' apartment, i.e., Mrs. Jackson's sister's apartment.Id.Mrs. Jackson and her sister, Mrs. Gates, easily took the hammer away from petitioner.Record, 113-14.Mrs. Jackson then hid the hammer under a pillow until the police arrived, when she turned it over to them.Record, 114.

Mrs. Jackson testified that the petitioner asked, "Where is Thomas?," i.e., Mr. Gates, as he entered the Gates' apartment with the hammer still in hand.Record, 115-16.At that time, Thomas Gates was on the telephone with the police, attempting to summon an ambulance as well.Record, 116.Upon being warned by Mrs. Jackson and Mrs. Gates to flee, Mr. Gates left the apartment.Record, 116-18.Mrs. Jackson stated that Mr. Johnson had been "doing fine" that morning, and that he and the petitioner had always gotten along well together.Record, 118-19.

Mrs. Jackson further testified that the petitioner's personality had undergone a dramatic change in the week prior to Johnson's killing.Record, 119.Because of the petitioner's strange behavior, Mrs. Jackson took him to a clinic where he was given a "horse pill" and an injection, after which he was sent home.Record, 123.Once at home, the petitioner remained there with his mother the rest of that week.Id.

On the Saturday prior to the killing, Mrs. Jackson had the petitioner admitted to Mercy Hospital.Record, 123-24.However, Mrs. Jackson testified that she withdrew her son from Mercy Hospital at the request of her physician, and attempted to have the petitioner admitted to Methodist Hospital.Record, 124.Apparently because of the inability of the hospital's staff to locate her physician, Mrs. Jackson gave up trying to have her son admitted to Methodist Hospital and took him home at approximately 10:00 p.m. Record, 124-26.Mrs. Jackson further noted that the petitioner had been afraid to eat anything that entire day, and because of his failure to sleep the night before, she gave him a sleeping pill.Record, 126-27.

It was Mrs. Jackson's testimony that the petitioner had never held a job for any consequential period of time, because he would be discharged either for fighting or for sleeping on the job.Record, 129-33.She further stated that she had been warned by the petitioner's aunt, Mrs. Gates, that the petitioner was having difficulties at his place of employment.Record, 133-35.

On cross-examination, Mrs. Jackson claimed that the petitioner had received no medication or treatment of any kind at the clinic where she had first taken him on the Monday before the killing.Record, 167-68.Instead, she admitted that the petitioner had had to be placed under restraint by the Gary Police Department and removed to Methodist Hospital, where he was given medication to calm him.Record, 168.Later, he was given additional medication by his own physician for a back injury.Record, 170-71.

The next individual to testify was Dr. I.K. Somani, a pathologist at Methodist Hospitals in Gary and Merrillville, Indiana.He stated that his autopsy of the body of the victim, Richard Johnson, revealed that Johnson had died from contusions of the brain and scalp fractures.Record, 143.

Mrs. Carnethia Gates, the petitioner's aunt, next testified that her sister and petitioner's mother, Mrs. Jackson, had come over to Mrs. Gates' apartment to use the telephone, because the petitioner did not want his mother to use her own telephone.Record, 196-98.Mrs. Gates stated that the petitioner had told her to move out of her own apartment, because he believed that her husband, Mr. Gates, intended to kill her.Record, 198-99.She further testified that the petitioner had not wished to talk with her in the presence of Johnson.Record, 199.After Johnson's murder, the petitioner sat alone with Mrs. Gates, hugging her, until the police arrived, whereupon he fled to the bathroom.Record, 201-202.Mrs. Gates also stated that the petitioner had undergone an abrupt personality change in the week prior to the killing, but that she had never known him to use "street drugs."Record, 202-207; 209-10.

Debra Jackson, the petitioner's sister, testified that, on the morning of September 18, 1977, the petitioner had been acting worse than he had been in the previous week.Record, 232-33.She stated that the petitioner had been standing on the steps by himself, saying "Die," then he grabbed Debra by the throat in an apparent attempt to protect her from some imaginary threat.Record, 233-34.Debra further testified that the petitioner had been pacing to and fro earlier, while constantly licking his lips.Record, 241; 247-48.Debra stated that she heard sounds of the scuffle coming from her apartment, and observed the petitioner standing in the doorway with a hammer in his hand and Richard Johnson lying on the floor.Record, 236-37.The petitioner reportedly said to her, "He ain't going to bother you no more, Debbie."Record, 237.It was Debra Jackson's testimony that she had never known the petitioner to use "street drugs."Record, 238-40.

Thomas Gates, the petitioner's uncle by marriage, testified next, generally confirming earlier testimony as to what transpired on the morning of September 18, 1977, including the fact that the petitioner had begun to act strangely the week prior to the killing.Record, 250-61.

Officer Petritus of the Gary Police Department testified that, on the morning of September 18, 1977, he had observed the victim, Richard Johnson, lying on the floor, the decedent's head next to the door and his feet toward the interior of the apartment.Record, 270-71.Officer Petritus related that the victim's head lay in a pool of blood, that there were several lacerations to the forehead, but that he was still breathing and had a faint pulse.Record, 271.

Dr. Frank Hogle, a forensic psychiatrist, was then called by the Court to testify.Dr. Hogle's testimony as to the mental state of the petitioner was that

Mr. Jackson on that date was suffering from an acute paranoid schizophrenic mental illness and lacked substantial capacity to either appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.

Record, 288.However, Dr. Hogle further testified that the petitioner had admitted to drinking quite heavily and to having had a "bad trip" on L.S.D. Record, 299-301.Dr. Hogle also stated that certain drugs, including L.S.D., could cause symptoms similar to those of schizophrenia.Record, 302....

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
2 cases
  • Lynk v. Duckworth
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • April 15, 1987
    ...the issue is one of judicial discretion and not of federal constitutional dimension. See this court's opinions in Jackson v. Duckworth, 549 F.Supp. 1280 (N.D.Ind.1982), and Collins v. Duckworth, 559 F.Supp. 541 (N.D. This court is also very reluctant to base a decision on the harmless error......
  • John R. Berry Iv v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • July 20, 2011
    ...is unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct ... the law does not hold him responsible for his acts.”); Jackson v. Duckworth, 549 F.Supp. 1280, 1285 (N.D.Ind.1982) (concluding that instruction that stated that voluntary intoxication is not a defense was counterbalanced with state......