Palmer v. State, 49S02-9012-PC-783
| Decision Date | 18 June 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 49S02-9012-PC-783,49S02-9012-PC-783 |
| Citation | 573 N.E.2d 880 |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | Michael D. PALMER, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
Appellant-Petitioner, Michael D. Palmer, asks for rehearing from our decision, Palmer v. State (1990), Ind., 563 N.E.2d 601, vacating the decision of the Court of Appeals, Palmer v. State (1990), Ind.App., 553 N.E.2d 1256, and affirming the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Palmer, in his petition to transfer, had raised several issues which we decided adversely to him. After a reconsideration of the issue of whether his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective in failing to object to and appeal from a jury instruction which incorrectly set forth the elements of voluntary manslaughter, we grant rehearing and summarily affirm the majority opinion of the Court of Appeals.
At the conclusion of Palmer's trial on the charge of murder, the trial court, without objection, instructed the jury that "the essential elements" of the crime of voluntary manslaughter were (1) the voluntary killing of a human being, (2) without malice, and (3) in sudden heat. All agree that this instruction was an erroneous statement of the law because neither lack of malice nor sudden heat were elements of voluntary manslaughter. Lack of malice was discarded as a required element and sudden heat was rendered a mitigating factor by the legislature's definition of voluntary manslaughter in 1977. IND.CODE ANN. Sec. 35-42-1-3 (Burns 1986).
On rehearing, we agree with the majority opinion of the Court of Appeals that Palmer's counsel's failure to object to and appeal from this incorrect instruction rendered their assistance ineffective. Palmer was entitled to have the jury instructed correctly on such an essential rule of law. We, therefore, grant Palmer's petition for rehearing and summarily affirm the majority opinion of the Court of Appeals, reversing the trial court and remanding with instructions to grant Palmer's petition for post-conviction relief.
I respectfully dissent from the granting of rehearing in this case.
The majority takes the position that the giving of the manslaughter instruction was error...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fleenor v. State
...at one point it misstates the burden of proof, and at another point considers sudden heat as an element of the crime. Palmer v. State (1991), Ind., 573 N.E.2d 880. However, due to our belief that a reasonable juror would have immediately recognized the misstatement on the burden of proof as......
-
Brown v. State
...Ind.App., 553 N.E.2d 1256, 1259 n. 3, vacated in Palmer v. State (1990) Ind., 563 N.E.2d 601, reinstated and affirmed in Palmer v. State (1991) Ind., 573 N.E.2d 880; Smith v. State (1990) 2d Dist. Ind.App., 559 N.E.2d 338, 344; Garner v. State (1990) 2d Dist. Ind.App., 550 N.E.2d 1309, tran......
-
Burris v. State
...burden of proof has been held to be per se deficient performance. Morrison v. State, (1992), Ind.App., 588 N.E.2d 527, 531 (citing Palmer, 573 N.E.2d 880). "The defendant strictly speaking, bears no burden with respect to 'sudden heat'; however, he bears the risk of not being entitled to an......
-
Massey v. State
...v. State, 778 N.E.2d 1276, 1279 (Ind.2002) (emphasis added)); see also Isom v. State, 651 N.E.2d 1151, 1152 (Ind.1995); Palmer v. State, 573 N.E.2d 880, 880 (Ind.1991), opinion on reh'g; Wilcoxen v. State, 705 N.E.2d 198, 203 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), trans. denied; Bane v. State, 587 N.E.2d 97, 1......