Shoun v. State
| Decision Date | 25 January 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 20S00-1601-LW-00061,20S00-1601-LW-00061 |
| Citation | 67 N.E.3d 635 |
| Parties | Michael T. SHOUN, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Attorney for Appellant : Donald R. Shuler, Barkes, Kolus, Rife & Shuler, LLP, Goshen, Indiana.
Attorneys for Appellee : Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Attorney General of Indiana, Angela N. Sanchez, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana.
A jury found defendant guilty of murdering his 17-year-old girlfriend and recommended a sentence of life without parole. The trial court entered judgment accordingly. In a direct appeal, defendant now challenges his sentence arguing that: 1) the trial court committed fundamental error because it should have sua sponte determined that he had an intellectual disability, precluding a life without parole sentence, even though his trial counsel withdrew the petition to determine whether he had said disability; 2) his sentence is unconstitutionally disproportionate pursuant to Article 1, Section 16 of the Indiana Constitution ; and 3) his sentence is inappropriate pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). In light of the facts and circumstances of this case, we hold that the trial court did not commit fundamental error, that defendant's sentence is proportional considering the severe nature of the crime and that defendant's sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the crime and his character. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court.
In November 2013, Michael Shoun was dating Tiana Alter, who was 17 years old at that time. Shoun was approximately 8-9 years older than Alter and had been dating her since she was 13. Alter lived with Shoun's sister, Aeirel. Shoun was supposed to be residing in a work release facility as part of his sentence for a class C felony being a habitual traffic offender conviction; however, Shoun was a fugitive from the facility and was staying in Alter's room at his sister's home.
Both Alter and Shoun used synthetic drugs. Alter would fall into a deep sleep as a result of her drug use, while Shoun would become paranoid as a result.
On November 2, 2013, several members of Shoun's family gathered at Aeirel's home for a small party, including Shoun's cousin, Michael Lewis. Aeirel was not home, and while Shoun and Alter were there, they spent most of the time in Alter's room with the door shut, apparently smoking synthetic marijuana.
When Shoun came out of the bedroom, Lewis noticed blood on him. Lewis asked Shoun why he was bleeding and Shoun indicated that it was not his blood. Fearing something bad had happened, Lewis then asked to be let into the room. At about the same time, Aeirel returned home and heard a loud noise, like someone being thrown into the wall. She came out to the hallway to find Lewis asking Shoun to be let into the room.
Once let into the room, Shoun saw Alter rolled up inside carpet that had been pulled up from the floor. He saw and smelled a large amount of blood. He shook Alter's shoulder and called out her name, but she did not respond; she was cold to the touch.
Shoun told Lewis he needed help to get rid of the body and then started talking about satellites, the devil and empires. Lewis told the others that Alter was dead and he and Aeirel decided to leave the home. Aerial called 911 and reported that she believed her brother killed his girlfriend.
When police arrived at the home, they found Shoun in the basement throwing and breaking things. Shoun told police not to come downstairs, but when they did, they found him sitting against the wall with a shirt covering his hands. Shoun told police to leave or else "it's going to blow up." (Tr. 372.) After multiple officers arrived and drew their weapons, Shoun eventually complied and allowed himself to be handcuffed. He told one of the officers "she's dead." (Tr. 413.)
Officers brought Shoun upstairs to the living room and they checked the rest of the home. They located Alter's body in her bedroom. Police arrested Shoun and placed him in a patrol car, where he was belligerent and argumentative. During a pat-down search, police recovered Alter's identification and a hand-rolled cigarette that Shoun said contained K2 (a synthetic marijuana) from Shoun's person. On the way to the station, Shoun sometimes made nonsensical statements such as quoting nursery rhymes, discussing Martin Luther King and commenting on the fact that the sheriff's department was conveniently located near the landfill because there were a lot of bodies in the landfill. While at the police station, Shoun's behavior was sometimes lucid and cooperative and at other times argumentative and aggressive. He continued to make nonsensical statements.
Meanwhile, a crime scene investigator arrived at the scene. He entered Alter's room, unrolled the carpet, noticed a large area of blood staining on the carpet and the floor and found Alter's body to have a large abdominal injury with her entrails showing. He found a knife blade under Alter's left arm, a knife handle and another knife nearby. Testing revealed Alter's DNA on both knives. The investigator also found three synthetic drug packages in the room, two of which were empty.
An autopsy revealed that parts of Alter's internal organs had been separated from their normal positions and entangled with her intestines. Her body had a large gaping wound over nine inches in length from the lower chest area to below the navel and multiple sharp force injuries to internal organs. Shoun inflicted so many cut and stab wounds to Alter's body that the forensic pathologist who completed her autopsy was unable to accurately count them. Shoun inflicted stab wounds to her stomach, rib cage, liver, diaphragm, kidneys, small and large intestines, pancreas, vena cava (the vein carrying blood from the lower body to the heart), her aorta (the main artery carrying blood from the heart to the body), and the membrane between her bladder and uterus. He completely severed a portion of her small intestine and completely cut out her spleen and right kidney. He repeatedly stabbed the pericardial sac surrounding her heart in a manner that could only be accomplished by stabbing up from below through her diaphragm. Other injuries indicated that Shoun may also have strangled Alter. Nearly all of Alter's wounds displayed bleeding that indicated the heart was beating when the wounds were inflicted, and thus, a vast majority of Alter's wounds were inflicted while she was still alive. Alter had alcohol and synthetic marijuana in her system.
The State charged Shoun with Alter's murder. Shortly after being appointed, Shoun's counsel requested a competency evaluation. Because the first two competency evaluations were in conflict about whether Shoun was competent, a third evaluation was ordered. It revealed that Shoun was competent. The State amended its charging information to request a sentence of life without parole (LWOP). It alleged two aggravating circumstances in support of LWOP: 1) that Shoun was in the custody of the Department of Correction at the time of the murder; and 2) that Shoun mutilated Alter while she was alive.
Shoun filed a petition alleging that he suffers from an intellectual disability that makes him ineligible for a LWOP sentence. However, Shoun ultimately withdrew this petition, as Shoun's trial counsel believed this petition would not be successful. At a hearing, defense counsel explained that he wanted to "make a record as to what we've done so that people know that there was really no chance of us succeeding on that petition." (Tr. 87.) Counsel then detailed the efforts undertaken, explaining that in addition to obtaining the court ordered evaluations and the earlier psychological evaluation that had been performed for use as mitigation evidence, counsel had spoken to Shoun's family members, obtained medical and school records, reviewed records from juvenile probation and the Bashor Home (where Shoun was placed for a time as a child) and spoken with Shoun's juvenile probation officer. After a review of all this evidence, defense counsel concluded that they could not meet their burden to prove Shoun suffered from an intellectual disability that manifested itself prior to the age of 22 and asked to withdraw the petition. The prosecutor stated that she had also gathered information and conferred with defense counsel and agreed that the defense could not prove the claim. Because Shoun withdrew his petition, the trial court cancelled the hearing on his petition and made no findings regarding the existence of an intellectual disability under the statute.
The case proceeded to a bifurcated jury trial. During the first phase, the jury found Shoun guilty of murder, a felony. Following the penalty phase, the jury found that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt at least one of the statutory aggravating circumstances. The jury also found that the statutory aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances. The jury recommended a sentence of LWOP be imposed. Thereafter, the trial court sentenced Shoun to LWOP. Shoun appeals only his LWOP sentence.
Shoun challenges his LWOP sentence in three ways. First, he argues that while his trial counsel withdrew his petition alleging that he is an individual with an intellectual disability (and thus, cannot be sentenced to LWOP), the trial court should have nevertheless found that Shoun did indeed suffer from an intellectual disability sua sponte , as there is ample evidence in the record that this is the case. Shoun claims that by failing to do so, the trial court committed fundamental error. Second, he argues that his sentence is unconstitutional under Article 1, Section 16 of the Indiana Constitution as it is disproportionate in light of his intellectual disability. Finally, he argues that his sentence is inappropriate pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), despite the horrific nature of the offense, again...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramirez v. State
... ... Shoun v. State , 67 N.E.3d 635, 641 (Ind. 2017). Because Ramirez's LWOP sentence is not based upon prior offenses, we simply ask whether it is graduated and proportioned to the nature of his offense. Id. Here, the nature of Ramirez's offense is so severe that it cannot be said that his LWOP sentence is ... ...
-
Cardosi v. State
... ... 4 Because Cardosi failed to show any substantial harm or potential for substantial harm, any trial court error wasn't "so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible." Shoun v. State , 67 N.E.3d 635, 640 (Ind. 2017). 128 N.E.3d 1286 III. The trial court didn't violate Cardosi's Confrontation Clause rights because Wedding's post-crime text messages weren't testimonial. Although a trial court generally has broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility of evidence, ... ...
-
Scott v. State
... ... Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. Others have disagreed. See, e.g. , Connor v. State , 58 N.E.3d 215, 219 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) ; Reis v. State , 88 N.E.3d 1099, 1103 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) ; Turkette v. State , 151 N.E.3d 782, 786 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), trans. denied. In Shoun v. State , our Supreme Court did not find waiver where a defendant exclusively challenged his sentence under the character prong. 67 N.E.3d 635 (Ind. 2017). We follow our Supreme Court's example ... ...
-
Norton v. State
... ... State , 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). Defendant has the burden to persuade us that the sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate. Anglemyer v. State , 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind.), as amended (July 10, 2007), decision clarified on reh'g , 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). Shoun v. State , 67 N.E.3d 635, 642 (Ind. 2017) (omission in original). [44] Indiana's flexible sentencing scheme allows trial courts to tailor an appropriate sentence to the circumstances presented, and the trial court's judgment "should receive considerable deference." Cardwell , 895 N.E.2d at ... ...