McCowan v. State
Decision Date | 25 March 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 64S03–1408–CR–516.,64S03–1408–CR–516. |
Citation | 27 N.E.3d 760 |
Parties | Dustin E. McCOWAN, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Thomas W. Vanes, Merrillville, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Angela N. Sanchez, Andrew A. Kobe, Brian L. Reitz, Deputy Attorneys General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
, Justice.
Among the most fundamental precepts of American criminal justice is that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Today we examine our holding in Robey v. State, 454 N.E.2d 1221 (Ind.1983)
, and state unequivocally and prospectively that it is the absolute right of every criminal defendant to receive the following jury instruction upon request: In this case, however, the jury instructions adequately encompassed these principles, which was the minimum required by prior precedent, and thus the trial court's failure to use this precise language was not error.
Early one morning, Amanda Bach's car was found abandoned in a parking lot, prompting an extended search of the area.1 Two days later, her body was found in a wooded area adjacent to railroad tracks, approximately three hundred yards from the home of defendant Dustin McCowan. After extensive investigation, McCowan was charged with Bach's murder.
Just before voir dire at McCowan's trial, the court instructed the prospective jurors:
In a criminal case such as this, the defendant is presumed to be innocent of the charges that are brought against him, and the State of Indiana has the burden of overcoming this presumption of innocence and proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; and I will be discussing these concepts with you a little later in the proceedings.
.
Once the jury was empaneled, the trial court gave its preliminary instructions, including, in relevant part, the following statements:
The trial court also told the jury: “You'll maintain copies of those [instructions] with you for your use throughout the trial.” Tr. at 245. During the presentation of evidence, the judge further admonished the jury a total of twenty-nine times not to form any opinions or judgments until all of the evidence had been presented and the final jury instructions had been read. Tr. at 284–85, 345–46, 425, 459, 524, 579, 695, 765–66, 846–47, 932, 974, 1048, 1133, 1252, 1293, 1464, 1524, 1593, 1658, 1783, 1823, 1869–70, 1980, 2108, 2193, 2247, 2286, 2344, 2355.
Following the presentation of evidence, McCowan tendered the following to the court as his “Proposed Final Jury Instruction # 1”:
App. at 297.2 McCowan cited Robey, 454 N.E.2d at 1222
, Simpson v. State, 915 N.E.2d 511, 519–20 (Ind.Ct.App.2009), Lee v. State, 964 N.E.2d 859, 864 (Ind.Ct.App.2012) and Smith v. State, 981 N.E.2d 1262 (Ind.Ct.App.2013) as authority for the proposed instruction. App. at 297. The trial judge declined to give McCowan's proposed instruction, determining its substance was covered by other instructions. The trial court's final jury instructions were, in relevant part, identical to the preliminary jury instructions.
The jury found McCowan guilty as charged, and the court sentenced him to sixty years in prison. McCowan appealed, arguing the trial court erred in refusing his Proposed Final Jury Instruction # 1, in admitting cell phone evidence pertaining to his location at the time of the murder, and in failing to recuse itself at sentencing based on certain ex parte communications. Our Court of Appeals affirmed in all respects. McCowan v. State, 10 N.E.3d 522 (Ind.Ct.App.2014)
. We granted transfer in order to state precisely what jury instructions a criminal defendant is entitled to receive regarding the presumption of innocence.
“The trial court has broad discretion as to how to instruct the jury, and we generally review that discretion only for abuse.” Kane v. State, 976 N.E.2d 1228, 1231 (Ind.2012)
. To determine whether a jury instruction was properly refused, we consider: “(1) whether the tendered instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there was evidence presented at trial to support giving the instruction; and (3) whether the substance of the instruction was covered by other instructions that were given.” Lampkins v. State, 778 N.E.2d 1248, 1253 (Ind.2002)
. In doing so, “we consider the instructions ‘as a whole and in reference to each other’ and do not reverse the trial court ‘for an abuse of that discretion unless the instructions as a whole mislead the jury as to the law in the case.’ ” Helsley v. State, 809 N.E.2d 292, 303 (Ind.2004) (quoting Carter v. State, 766 N.E.2d 377, 382 (Ind.2002) ).
The Fourteenth Amendment requires the trial court to instruct the jury in criminal cases that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See Carter v. Kentucky, 450 U.S. 288, 302 n. 19, 101 S.Ct. 1112, 67 L.Ed.2d 241 (1981)
( . Failure to give a requested instruction on the presumption of innocence, however, is not in and of itself a violation of the Constitution. See
Kentucky v. Whorton, 441 U.S. 786, 788–89, 99 S.Ct. 2088, 60 L.Ed.2d 640 (1979) ; Bledsoe v. State, 274 Ind. 286, 292, 410 N.E.2d 1310, 1315 (1980). Indeed, “the purpose of a jury instruction is to inform the jury of the law applicable to the facts without misleading the jury and to enable it to comprehend the case clearly and arrive at a just, fair, and correct verdict.” Campbell v. State, 19 N.E.3d 271, 277 (Ind.2014) (internal citations omitted).
Indiana has long recognized the need in criminal cases for jury instructions that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. See Long v. State, 46 Ind. 582, 587 (1874)
(. ) The historical source for the content of that instruction is Farley v. State, 127 Ind. 419, 26 N.E. 898 (1891). In Farley, the trial court refused to give the following instruction, requested by the defendant:
The defendant is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and this presumption prevails until the close of the trial, and you should weigh the evidence in the light of this presumption, and it should be your endeavor to reconcile all the evidence with this presumption of innocence if you can.
. Instead, the trial court gave “general instructions to the effect that the defendant is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id., 26 N.E. at 899. The Farley Court determined the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Zanders v. State, 15S01-1611-CR-571
...no violation. McCowan v. State , 10 N.E.3d 522, 533–35 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014)summarily aff'd in relevant part by McCowan v. State , 27 N.E.3d 760, 768 (Ind. 2015). In McCowan , a woman disappeared after visiting her ex-boyfriend's house late at night—a visit that coincided with the sound of g......
-
Paul v. State
...the instruction; and (3) whether the substance of the instruction was covered by other instructions that were given." Id. (citing McCowan, 27 N.E.3d at 763-64). "In doing so, we consider the instructions as a and in reference to each other and do not reverse the trial court for an abuse of ......
-
Torrence v. Commonwealth
...522, 532 (Ind. Ct. App.), transfer granted, opinion vacated, 14 N.E.3d 44 (Ind. 2014), and opinion aff'd in part, vacated in part, 27 N.E.3d 760 (Ind. 2015).The court in McCowan noted the detective did not testify as an expert but testified from four limited specialized trainings attended o......
-
Clark v. State
...that this court should adopt the Indiana rule articulated in Robey v. State, 454 N.E.2d 1221, 1222 (Ind. 1983), abrogated by McCowan v. State, 27 N.E.3d 760 (2015), and require that such an instruction be given when requested. This argument is also unpersuasive because the Nevada Legislatur......