State v. Hollars, No. 12A02-0711-CR-979.
| Decision Date | 03 June 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 12A02-0711-CR-979. |
| Citation | 887 N.E.2d 197 |
| Parties | STATE of Indiana, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. Shannon HOLLARS, Appellee-Defendant. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Cynthia L. Ploughe, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.
Bradley K. Mohler, Ponton & Mohler, Frankfort, IN, Attorney for Appellee.
Appellant-Plaintiff, the State of Indiana (State), appeals the trial court's grant of Appellee-Defendant Shannon Hollars' (Hollars) motion to correct error and a new trial following Hollars' conviction for attempted murder, a Class A felony, Ind. Code §§ 35-42-1-1 and 35-41-5-1.
We reverse.
The State presents a single issue for our review, which we restate as: Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting Hollars' motion to correct error.
In December of 2004, officers with the Frankfort (Indiana) Police Department orchestrated three marijuana transactions between an informant and Hollars. Upon learning that Hollars was expected to arrive home at midnight on December 15, 2004, the officers elected to execute a search warrant at the home at that time. Officers believed that executing the search warrant late at night was the safest plan because, among other things, it would minimize the number of innocent bystanders and reduce the risk that Hollars would flee. In addition, for several reasons, Detective William Hackerd (Detective Hackerd) requested the support of the Emergency Response Team (ERT). First, the informant had said that Hollars kept guns at a previous residence. Also, Detective Hackerd knew from experience that drug dealers have guns. Finally, during one of the marijuana transactions, Hollars said that "a lot of people are getting popped." (Transcript p. 109).
The ERT approached Hollars' house at approximately 1:00 a.m. on December 16, 2004. An officer knocked on the outer door and announced the police presence in a loud voice. No response was heard. An officer then broke the glass in the outer door and reached in to unlock the door. The officers then proceeded through the enclosed front porch to a steel door and again knocked and issued "several loud announcements" of "police, search warrant." (Tr. p. 343). Still hearing no response, the officers used a "heavy ram" to open the door. (Tr. p. 246). A shielding officer entered the home first with Marshal Byron Padgett (Marshal Padgett) behind him. The officers continued to yell "police, search warrant" as they entered the living room. (Tr. p. 248).
As the officers moved through the living room, Marshal Padgett saw Hollars and his wife on a bed in a bedroom and yelled "suspect." (Tr. p. 345). Marshal Padget moved toward the couple yelling "police, let me see your hands." (Tr. p. 346). Hollars then started "to come out of the bed," and Marshal Padgett saw "a very deliberate motion of him drawing a weapon and pointing it at me." (Tr. p. 346). Marshal Padgett then saw a muzzle flash and feared he was about to be shot, so he returned fire, as did another officer. Marshal Padgett was not wounded, but Hollars was hit in the right arm. The officers took Hollars into custody. According to the officers, no more than five seconds passed from the time that the ERT entered the living room to the time that Hollars fired his gun.
On December 29, 2004, the State filed an Information charging Hollars with: Count I, attempted murder, a Class A felony, I.C. §§ 35-42-1-1 and 35-41-5-1; Count II, dealing marijuana, as a Class D felony, I.C. § 35-48-4-10; Count III, dealing marijuana, as a Class A misdemeanor, I.C. § 35-48-4-10; Count IV, dealing marijuana, as a Class D felony, I.C. § 35-48-4-10; and Count V, possession of marijuana, as a Class D felony, I.C. § 35-48-4-11.2 A jury trial began on March 20, 2007. After all of the evidence was presented, Hollars tendered the following jury instruction (Hollars' Proposed Instruction # 2) regarding the attempted murder charge "Specific intent for attempted murder is intent to achieve death, rather than intent to engage in conduct which carries with it a risk of death." (Appellant's App. p. 40). The trial court declined to give the jury the instruction. The jury found Hollars guilty on all counts.
On May 2, 2007, two days before his sentencing hearing, Hollars filed a motion to correct error. Hollars alleged that the State had failed to produce an E.R. physician's diagram during discovery. The diagram in question identifies entry and exit wounds to Hollars' arm caused by the gunfire from Marshall Padgett. According to Hollars, the diagram would have been favorable to him "because it is either exculpatory or impeaching, i.e. would have provided additional information and/or testimony to validate [Hollars'] claim that he was shot first and/or shot through the back of his arm and/or would have impeached testimony from the State's witnesses[.]" (Appellant's App. p. 98).
On May 4, 2007, the trial court proceeded with the sentencing hearing. The trial court made the following comments regarding Hollars' specific intent to kill:
The trial may have taken four days to hear and conclude but the operative facts in this case concerning Attempted Murder and that charge boiled down to three to five seconds and about eight foot of distance. An extremely short distance. And extremely short period of time. Which brings up specific intent versus reaction. [C]an an individual form a specific intent to kill [ ] another human being in that amount of time in this situation?
* * * *
[T]he facts of this case have troubled me deeply. Less than five seconds in the middle of the night. How clear headed are any of us when we're awaken from slumber? How clearly does a person hear words being shouted. I'm confident [the ERT] tries to make words clear. But how well do we process words waking up?
* * * *
Was this [] reckless reaction, a knee jerk reaction or an intent to kill another person?
* * * *
Having heard the evidence, I can honestly admit, I've never had a closer issue to ponder with regard to these requirements of specific intent and whether that was (inaudible). I even talked with counsel a few days ago. And alerted them to my concern. But in the end an honorable jury has listened. They pondered. And they reached their verdict. This Court will honor their verdicts and sentence [Hollars] accordingly.
(Transcript pp. 882, 887-88). The trial court imposed a cumulative sentence of twenty-two years. It added, however, that it would "consider the final adjudication to be the date when the ruling is on the Motion to Correct Errors that is pending." (Tr. p. 888).
Sure enough, on August 23, 2007, the trial court issued an order granting Hollars' motion to correct error. Based on Hollars' motion and its own sua sponte review of the case, the trial court granted relief for three reasons. First, it concluded that it should have given Hollars' Proposed Instruction # 2 regarding specific intent. Second, it found that the State should have provided Hollars with the E.R. physician's diagram, even though Hollars "could have otherwise secured this document." (Appellant's App. p. 161). Third, it noted the late hour at which the police entered Hollars' house and the benefits of the so-called "Knock-and-Announce requirement." (Appellant's App. p. 162). The trial court conceded that "[n]o one issue would necessarily warrant [Hollars] being provided a new trial[.]" (Appellant's App. p. 161). But, the trial court continued, "At the end of the day, however, the citizens of Clinton County must have confidence that [Hollars] was provided the Due Process to which each citizen is entitled, and that [Hollars] received a fair trial[.]" (Appellant's App. p. 161). The trial court found "cumulatively that [Hollars] should be granted a new trial[.]" (Appellant's App. p. 162). The trial court vacated Hollars' attempted murder conviction and granted him a new trial on that charge.3
The State now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
On appeal, the State contends that the trial court abused its discretion by granting Hollars' motion to correct error. The decision to grant or deny a motion to correct error is within the trial court's discretion, and we reverse such a decision only for an abuse of that discretion. Moore v. State, 869 N.E.2d 489, 491 (Ind. Ct.App.2007). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's decision is against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or if the trial court has misinterpreted the law. Id.
The trial court granted Hollars' motion to correct error after finding that he was deprived of due process by the cumulative effect of three perceived errors: (1) jury instructions; (2) discovery violation; and (3) timing of the execution of the search warrant. We address each factor in turn.
The State argues that the trial court erroneously concluded that it should have given Hollars' Proposed Instruction # 2, which provided: "Specific intent for attempted murder is intent to achieve death, rather than intent to engage in conduct which carries with it a risk of death." (Appellant's App. p. 40). Hollars seeks to justify the trial court's sua sponte finding by asserting that the failure to give the instruction was fundamental error under Spradlin v. State, 569 N.E.2d 948 (Ind. 1991). We disagree.
In Spradlin, our supreme court simply held that an attempted murder instruction must inform the jury that the defendant acted "with intent to kill the victim." Id. at 949. Here, as the State contends, the trial court's Final Instruction # 2 did just that. It provided:
The crime of Attempted Murder is defined by statute 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Myers v. Superintendent, Ind. State Prison
-
Tancil v. State
...to Indiana Appellate Rule 48. In stating the applicable standard of review in their briefs, however, both parties cite State v. Hollars, 887 N.E.2d 197 (Ind.Ct.App.2008), trans. vacated, in which another panel of this Court said, A trial court has wide discretion to correct errors and to gr......
-
Edmond v. State
...made by the jury, and relief is appropriate only if the jury's determination is unreasonable or improper.” State v. Hollars, 887 N.E.2d 197, 204 (Ind.Ct.App.2008), trans. denied. After hearing the case along with the jury and assessing the credibility of the witnesses, the trial court as th......
- State v. Hollars