Stader v. State, No. 2-1082A356

Docket NºNo. 2-1082A356
Citation453 N.E.2d 1032
Case DateSeptember 22, 1983
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

Page 1032

453 N.E.2d 1032
Jay W. STADER, Appellant (Defendant Below),
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).
No. 2-1082A356.
Court of Appeals of Indiana,
Third District.
Sept. 22, 1983.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 1, 1983.

Page 1033

Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender of Ind., David P. Freund, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Ind., Lisa M. Paunicka, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

Page 1034

HOFFMAN, Judge.

A jury found appellant Jay W. Stader guilty of confinement while armed with a deadly weapon under Ind.Code Sec. 35-42-3-3 (1982 Burns Supp.). The jury further found that Stader was mentally ill at the time of the crime pursuant to Ind.Code Sec. 35-5-2-3 (Burns 1979 Repl.). 1 As a result, Stader received a seven and one-half year sentence from which he presently appeals.

Stader first maintains that the jury verdict was contrary to law because the evidence established that he was insane at the time of the offense. One who raises the defense of insanity in Indiana also bears the burden of proving this defense by a preponderance of the evidence. See Ind.Code Sec. 35-41-4-1(b) (Burns 1979 Repl.); Basham v. State, (1981) Ind., 422 N.E.2d 1206. The standard for appellate review for this defense was clearly delineated in Turner v. State, (1981) Ind., 428 N.E.2d 1244, at 1246, where the Supreme Court of Indiana stated:

"One who has interposed such a defense and failed therein at the trial level has a monumental burden if he seeks to upset the finding of the fact trier on appeal, for he is appealing from a negative finding, and the issue is not whether or not the finding was sustained by the evidence but whether it was contrary to all the evidence and hence contrary to law. It is only where the evidence is without conflict and leads to but one conclusion and the trier of fact has reached an opposite conclusion, that the decision predicated upon such finding will be disturbed as being contrary to law. Walker v. State, (1978) 267 Ind. 649, 651, 372 N.E.2d 739, 740."

While Stader correctly states this standard of review, the record does not indicate that the verdict was contrary to law. Four psychiatric experts testified concerning Stader's mental state at the time of the crime. Although all four experts agreed that he was suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder, they were unable to give the jury a uniform opinion as to his sanity at the time of the criminal act. Dr. Caudill stated that:

"I felt he knew the difference between right and wrong. Uh, I felt that he was emotionally overwhelmed at the time. That interfered with his making a clear conforming to the law type of behavior. Uh, I'm waivering on that issue."

Dr. Yarling commented as follows:

"... I could not develope any line of reasoning which would lead me to an opinion that he was at anytime in the past insane, whether it be at that particular time of the alleged incident or at any other time."

Dr. Davis' testimony was that:

"... [I]t is not my opinion or at least I am not willing to state that uh, because of mental disease or defects, specifically uh, post traumatic stress syndrome, that he was unable to determine right from wrong. Uh, I think that the second part of the insanity defense is the question for the jury."

For purposes of the insanity defense, the term "mental disease or defect" has been legislatively defined by Ind.Code Sec. 35-41-3-6(a) (Burns 1979 Repl.):

"A person is not responsible for having engaged in prohibited conduct if, as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law."

Under this standard, the expert testimony clearly supports the jury determination that Stader was not insane at the time of the crime. Because there was evidence to support the jury's decision, its verdict must be sustained. Taylor v. State, (1982) Ind., 440 N.E.2d 1109; Thomas v. State, (1981) Ind., 420 N.E.2d 1216.

Page 1035

Next, Stader asserts that the trial court erred in denying the ground in his motion to correct errors premised on bailiff misconduct. Prior to jury deliberations, juror John Hirtzel asked the bailiff, John Nicewander, if the jury could have "transcripts of the testimony." Nicewander replied that there were no transcripts. Stader now contends that Nicewander should have relayed this question to the trial judge, and the jury should have been returned to the courtroom in the presence of the parties for the response to the question.

The standard for appellate review applicable in such situations was established by the Supreme Court in Conrad v. Tomlinson, (1972) 258 Ind. 115, 279 N.E.2d 546. The Conrad court held that:

"[a]lthough the preferred procedure in matters such as this is that the Bailiff instruct the jury that they could request to be brought into open court to ask their question, this Court is of the opinion that the failure to follow such procedure does not constitute reversible error unless some harm or prejudice has been suffered by the objecting party. When an irregularity such as this occurs harm will be presumed, and if the irregularity is not explained, a reversal of the judgment should follow. However, if an explanation for the alleged misconduct is offered, and if this Court is satisfied that no harm or prejudice resulted, then the judgment of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boles, Civ. A. No. IP83-834-C.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of Indiana)
    • May 30, 1984
    ...risk ... by knowingly owning and operating a fleet of uninsured vehicles upon the highways.'" Connell v. American Underwriters, Inc., 453 N.E.2d at 1032 quoting Vincel, 452 N.E.2d at 426 (quoting France v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 380 So.2d 1155, 1156 The citations to the Court of Appe......
  • Naked City, Inc. v. State, No. 3-282A23
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • January 26, 1984
    ...normally have to be raised through a different procedure than that presently employed by Drost. See Stader v. State (1983), Ind.App., 453 N.E.2d 1032; Jefferson v. State (1980), Ind.App., 399 N.E.2d Yet where reasonable medical care is denied deliberately, and such denial results in the inf......
  • U.S. ex rel. Weismiller v. Lane, No. 85-2280
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • March 30, 1987
    ...remedy is a suit to compel the state to provide treatment. See People v. McLeod, 407 Mich. 632, 288 N.W.2d 909 (1980); Stader v. State, 453 N.E.2d 1032, 1036 (Ind.App.1983). The state is not required to draw perfect classifications, merely reasonable ones. Weismiller does not cite us to any......
  • State v. Winters, No. 49A02-9604-PC-248
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • April 4, 1997
    ...State, 266 Ind. 344, 346-47, 363 N.E.2d 956, 957 (1977); Harrison v. State, 575 N.E.2d 642, 649-50 (Ind.Ct.App.1991); Stader v. State, 453 N.E.2d 1032, 1035 (Ind.Ct.App.1983); Laine v. State, 154 Ind.App. 81, 85-86, 289 N.E.2d 141, 143-44 With respect to ex parte communications between cour......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boles, Civ. A. No. IP83-834-C.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of Indiana)
    • May 30, 1984
    ...risk ... by knowingly owning and operating a fleet of uninsured vehicles upon the highways.'" Connell v. American Underwriters, Inc., 453 N.E.2d at 1032 quoting Vincel, 452 N.E.2d at 426 (quoting France v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 380 So.2d 1155, 1156 The citations to the Court of Appe......
  • Naked City, Inc. v. State, No. 3-282A23
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • January 26, 1984
    ...normally have to be raised through a different procedure than that presently employed by Drost. See Stader v. State (1983), Ind.App., 453 N.E.2d 1032; Jefferson v. State (1980), Ind.App., 399 N.E.2d Yet where reasonable medical care is denied deliberately, and such denial results in the inf......
  • U.S. ex rel. Weismiller v. Lane, No. 85-2280
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • March 30, 1987
    ...remedy is a suit to compel the state to provide treatment. See People v. McLeod, 407 Mich. 632, 288 N.W.2d 909 (1980); Stader v. State, 453 N.E.2d 1032, 1036 (Ind.App.1983). The state is not required to draw perfect classifications, merely reasonable ones. Weismiller does not cite us to any......
  • State v. Winters, No. 49A02-9604-PC-248
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • April 4, 1997
    ...State, 266 Ind. 344, 346-47, 363 N.E.2d 956, 957 (1977); Harrison v. State, 575 N.E.2d 642, 649-50 (Ind.Ct.App.1991); Stader v. State, 453 N.E.2d 1032, 1035 (Ind.Ct.App.1983); Laine v. State, 154 Ind.App. 81, 85-86, 289 N.E.2d 141, 143-44 With respect to ex parte communications between cour......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT