Smith v. State
| Decision Date | 26 November 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 383S101,383S101 |
| Citation | 470 N.E.2d 1316 |
| Parties | Kenneth Ray SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Patrick J. McManama, Hammond, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Kathleen Ranson Radford, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
This is a direct appeal from a conviction of murder Ind.Code Sec. 35-42-1-1(1). The case was tried before a jury. Appellant was sentenced to a prison term of fifty-years.
Appellant raises four issues on appeal; (1) whether the trial court erred by admitting into evidence State's Exhibit No. Four which was a photograph of the decedent; (2) whether the trial court erred by giving the jury an instruction on flight; (3) whether there was sufficient evidence to support his conviction for murder; (4) whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was cruel and unusual punishment.
These are the facts that tend to support the determination of guilt. On September 11, 1981, at approximately 4:00 p.m. Maurice Lewis joined his brother Stephen, cousin Darnell Lewis, and two young women at the Project Center playground in East Chicago. While the group stood and talked, appellant drove up in a red and white Chevrolet pick-up truck. Appellant rolled down the window and told Stephen, "I haven't forgot what you done ... I'm going to get you ... I'll be back with my boy." Appellant then drove away. About fifteen minutes later, appellant returned with Murray Shamble. Shamble fired a .12 gauge shotgun into the air and warned, "don't run ... don't run; it's too late to run." Everyone, including Stephen, quickly scattered.
Stephen ran to an off-duty policeman who was sitting in his car, and Stephen said, "this is the police." However, appellant and Shamble kept walking toward Stephen with the shotgun, and appellant stated, "I'm going to kill you ..., I'm going to kill him, I'm going to kill him." Meanwhile Stephen ran to the passenger's side of the policeman's car and knelt down. The policeman remained in the car with his seven year old daughter. Appellant and Shamble were on the driver's side of the car. Appellant told Shamble to shoot under the car in the direction of Stephen, but Shamble refused; consequently, appellant snatched the shotgun out of his hand. At that moment, Stephen stood up, looked over the top of the car, and ran. He was about four or five running steps away when appellant shot him in the lower right back. Appellant and Shamble ran away as soon as the shot was fired. Stephen kept running and, shortly thereafter, fell to the ground. Several witnesses testified that Stephen was not armed, and no weapon was found on him. An ambulance and the police were summoned to the scene. Stephen died shortly after he arrived at the hospital.
Meanwhile, appellant was driving his truck on 149th Street and Kennedy Avenue when he crashed into the back of a motorcycle operated by Dan Palmer. Palmer testified that when he told appellant he would have to call the police, appellant appeared to be nervous, and that the appellant told him that he had just "wasted some cat and needed to get away fast." When the police arrived, they recognized appellant from a description they had heard over the radio, and they arrested him. The police also found a live shotgun shell on the seat of appellant's truck.
State's Exhibit No. 4 is a large frontal view of the deceased victim depicting his head and shoulders. The exhibit was admitted into evidence over appellant's objection that it was irrelevant and prejudicial. Exhibit No. 4 was admitted in conjunction with two other photographs depicting the victim's shotgun wounds to the right side.
Photographs depicting the corpse of the victim in a homicide prosecution are for the most part relevant when they show trauma sustained at the time of the attack. Such exhibits are admissible unless their relevant quality is outweighed by their tendency to inflame and impassion the jury against the defense. Owens v. State (1982), Ind., 431 N.E.2d 108, Webster v. State (1981), Ind., 426 N.E.2d 1295. In addition, the admission of photographs into evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed unless an abuse of discretion is shown. Inman v. State (1978), 270 Ind. 130, 383 N.E.2d 820, cert. denied 444 U.S. 855, 100 S.Ct. 114, 62 L.Ed.2d 74; Owens v. State (1975), 263 Ind. 487, 333 N.E.2d 745; Cf. Hyde v. State (1983), Ind., 451 N.E.2d 648.
The photograph in question here has some relevance since it depicts the top portion of the trauma of the right shoulder, and because there was testimony that the victim vomited blood. Consequently, the crucial question is whether or not the relevant quality of the photograph was outweighted by its tendency to inflame and impassion the jury against appellant. The obvious prejudicial impact of the photograph arises from the fact that it depicts a dead man's face. However, the photograph is not shockingly gruesome, and its prejudicial impact does not appear to be exceedingly great. Here, the scales are near equipoise; and as a result, we must defer to the trial court's ruling. Absent clear error in its determination, we will not say, as a matter of law that the trial court erred. Dresser v. State (1983), Ind., 454 N.E.2d 406.
Appellant argues that the trial court erred in giving the jury an instruction on flight. At the close of the evidence the trial court read nineteen final instructions; one of which was on flight. The challenged instruction reads as follows:
The flight of a person immediately after the commission of a crime and other evidence of actions calculated to hide a crime though not proof of guilt, are evidence of consciousness of guilt and are circumstances which may be considered by you in connection with all other evidence.
It is well settled that a court must determine the applicability of giving an instruction on flight by considering all reasonable inferences which might be drawn from the evidence. Lane v. State (1983),...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bellmore v. State
...defendant resulted in her death. This evidence is not shockingly gruesome, nor is its prejudicial impact excessive. See Smith v. State (1984), Ind., 470 N.E.2d 1316, 1318. We find sufficient probative value to support the trial court's exercise of discretion in admitting the photographs and......
-
Hansford v. State
...flight instruction that evidence of flight is not proof of guilt but may be relevant as circumstantial evidence of guilt. Smith v. State (1984), Ind., 470 N.E.2d 1316. The jury was correctly charged that appellant's escape did not constitute proof of guilt, but could be considered by the ju......
-
Harrison v. State
...a ten-year enhancement beyond the presumptive sentence, was "not grossly out of proportion" for taking a human life. Smith v. State, 470 N.E.2d 1316, 1319 (Ind.1984). We draw that same conclusion The Indiana Constitution requires penalties to be proportional to the nature of the offense. IN......
-
Davis v. State
...is admissible, unless its tendency to inflame and impassion the jury against the defendant outweighs its relevance. Smith v. State (1984), Ind., 470 N.E.2d 1316, 1318. Photographs of a crime scene are generally admissible as competent and relevant aids to be used by a jury in understanding ......