Rosales v. State

• Decision Date: 27 January 2014
• Docket Number: No. 48A02–1303–CR–229.,48A02–1303–CR–229.
• Citation: 3 N.E.3d 1014
• Parties: Ruben ROSALES, Appellant–Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

3 N.E.3d 1014

Ruben ROSALES, Appellant–Defendant,

v.STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff.

No. 48A02–1303–CR–229.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Jan. 27, 2014.

John B. Steinhart, Lafayette, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, George P. Sherman, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

OPINION

NAJAM, Judge.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Ruben Rosales appeals his conviction for attempted murder, a Class A felony, following a jury trial.¹ Rosales raises a single issue for our review, namely, whether the trial court committed fundamental error when it instructed the jury. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In June of 2012, Rosales was a member of the Latin Kings gang in Anderson. Rosales' girlfriend, Briana White, had had a number of problems with Serrano 13, a rival gang. Sergio Torres was a member of the Serrano 13 gang.

In the afternoon of June 27, Torres went to a business near his home and purchased a soft drink and a bag of chips. Torres proceeded down an alley to return to his home. At that time, Rosales, Donavan Ball, and David Rivera drove a van into the alley behind Torres. Ball jumped out of the van at Torres. Ball was unarmed and Torres was facing him. Torres then felt a blow to his head and blacked out. When he awoke, he was on the ground and he saw Rosales. Torres could barely move. He observed Rosales and Ball run back to the van and drive away.

A witness, Melamekia Watson, observed the van near the alley and observed a Caucasian male and an Hispanic male exit the van. Watson saw that the Hispanic male was carrying a “metal bat.” Transcript at 266. She saw the two males enter the alley. She then saw the two men leave the alley “like they w[ere] on a mission” and reenter the van. Id. at 268. The Hispanic male still held the bat when Watson observed him reenter the van. The van then drove away.

Police arrived shortly after the attack on Torres and observed “a lot of blood coming from [Torres'] head.” Id. at 232. Torres was eventually diagnosed with life-threatening trauma to the head, including multiple skull fractures, a subdural hematoma, and bleeding in the brain.

The next day, Rosales went to the home of his aunt, Michelle Rosales. Michelle observed that Rosales was nervous, and she asked him why he was nervous. Rosales told his aunt “he needed to leave and go back to Chicago.” Id. at 326. Michelle took Rosales to a bus station in Indianapolis and bought him a ticket to board a bus to Chicago. Michelle then called Amanda Smith, who lived with Ball, and “asked her what was going on, [be]cause I knew something had happened, obviously[,] by the way [Rosales] was acting.” Id. at 328. Smith told Michelle “what had ... happened,” and Michelle called the police. Id. The police arrested Rosales at the bus station in Indianapolis.

On July 5, the State charged Rosales with attempted murder, a Class A felony, and participating in a criminal gang, a Class D felony. Rosales' was tried to a jury in January and February of 2013. The trial court instructed the jury on attempted murder in relevant part as follows: “the crime of attempted murder is defined as follows: a person attempts to commit a murder when, acting with the specific intent to kill another person, he engages in conduct that constitutes a substantial step toward kill[ing] that person.” Id. at 557. The court also instructed the jury on accomplice liability, stating, in relevant part: “[a] person who knowingly or intentionally aids, induces or causes another person to commit an offense commits that offense.... An accomplice is liable for the acts of the principal which, even if not a part of their original plan, are probable and natural consequences thereof.” Id. at 563. The court further instructed the jury regarding the State's burden of proof.

The jury found Rosales guilty as charged of attempted murder, and the trial court sentenced him accordingly. This appeal ensued.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

Rosales raises a single issue for our review, namely, whether the trial court committed fundamental error when it instructed the jury on accomplice liability. As our Supreme Court has explained:

A claim that has been waived by a defendant's failure to raise a contemporaneous objection can be reviewed on appeal if the reviewing court determines that a fundamental error occurred. The fundamental error exception is “extremely narrow, and applies only when the error constitutes a blatant violation of basic principles, the harm or potential for harm is substantial, and the resulting error denies the defendant fundamental due process.” The error claimed must either “make a fair trial impossible” or constitute “clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process.” This exception is available only in “egregious circumstances.”

Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204, 207 (Ind.2010) (citations omitted); see also Hopkins v. State, 759 N.E.2d 633, 638 (Ind.2001); Canaan v. State, 683 N.E.2d 227, 235 n. 6 (Ind.1997).

The task of instructing the jury is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. As we have explained:

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. Instruction of the jury is left to the sound judgment of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Jury instructions are not to be considered in isolation, but as a whole and in reference to each other. The instructions must be a complete, accurate statement of the law which will not confuse or mislead the jury. Still, errors in the giving or refusing of instructions are harmless where a conviction is clearly sustained by the evidence and the jury could not properly have found otherwise.

Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621, 630 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (citations and quotations omitted). When determining whether fundamental error occurred based on an incorrect jury instruction, “we look not to the erroneous instruction in isolation” but to “all relevant information given to the jury, including closing argument and other instructions.” Boesch v. State, 778 N.E.2d 1276, 1279 (Ind.2002) (citations omitted).

Rosales asserts that the trial court committed fundamental error because it “fail[ed] to instruct the jury regarding the specific intent requirement for an attempted murder conviction based on accomplice liability....” Appellant's Br. at 5. In support, Rosales relies on Hopkins 759 N.E.2d at 637–39, and Tiller v. State, 896 N.E.2d 537, 541–43 (Ind.Ct.App.2008). In those cases, our Supreme Court and this court recognized fundamental error when the trial court failed to instruct the jury that an accomplice to attempted murder must act with “specific intent to kill,” instead instructed the jury that the accomplice need only act “knowingly,” and the defendant's intent was at issue at trial. Hopkins, 759 N.E.2d at 637–39;Tiller, 896 N.E.2d at 541–43.

Both Hopkins and Tiller are progeny of our Supreme Court's decision in Spradlin v. State, 569 N.E.2d 948, 950 (Ind.1991), in which the court held that, to convict a defendant of attempted murder, the State must prove that the defendant intended to kill the victim at the time the defendant took a substantial step toward committing murder. It is well established that a “Spradlin claim presents the potential for fundamental error.” Ramsey v. State, 723 N.E.2d 869, 872 (Ind.2000) (emphasis added). Thus, stated another way, not every Spradlin claim amounts to fundamental error.

Rosales' reliance on Hopkins and Tiller is misplaced. In both cases, accomplice liability was the only theory of culpability supporting the defendant's conviction. Hopkins, 759 N.E.2d at 637;Tiller, 896 N.E.2d at 543. And in both cases the absence of an “intent to kill” jury instruction was fatal.

Here, the premise for Rosales' entire argument is that the jury must have found him guilty as an accomplice. But accomplice liability was not the exclusive theory for Rosales' conviction. Rather, the State's evidence thoroughly supports a jury finding that Rosales is guilty of attempted murder as the principal. In particular, Torres testified that Ball and Rosales jumped out of the van in the alley while he was heading home from a nearby business. Torres testified that Ball was unarmed, that he felt a blow to his head, and that, when he awoke after momentarily blacking out from the blow, he observed Rosales. Another witness, Watson, testified that she saw the van near the alley at the time of the attack and observed a Caucasian male and an Hispanic male exit the van. Watson saw that the Hispanic male was carrying a metal bat as he both entered into and fled from the alley. There is no dispute that Rosales is Hispanic and Ball is Caucasian. Following the attack, Rosales' aunt noticed that Rosales was unusually nervous, and he told her he wanted to leave for Chicago immediately. In her closing argument for the State, the prosecutor asserted that “this individual, this defendant, took that bat and swung it against Sergio Torres' head intending to kill him.” Transcript at 518. And there is no question that the trial court properly instructed the jury that the crime of attempted murder requires the defendant to have “the specific intent to kill another person.” Id. at 557; see Echols v. State, 722 N.E.2d 805, 807–08 (Ind.2000) (citing Taylor v. State, 616 N.E.2d 748, 749 (Ind.1993)). In the alternative, the prosecutor also argued accomplice liability to the jury.

Again, when determining whether fundamental error occurred based on an incorrect jury instruction, “we look not to the erroneous instruction in isolation” but to “all relevant information given to the jury, including closing argument and other instructions.” Boesch, 778 N.E.2d at 1279 (citations omitted). Here, unlike in Hopkins and Tiller, where accomplice liability...