State v. Royer
| Decision Date | 08 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-PC-955 |
| Citation | 166 N.E.3d 380 |
| Parties | STATE of Indiana, Appellant-Respondent, v. Andrew M. ROYER, Appellee-Petitioner |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Attorneys for Appellant: Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, Caryn N. Szyper, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee: Elliot Slosar, Exoneration Justice Project, Notre Dame Law School, Notre Dame, Indiana, Elliot Slosar, The Exoneration Project, Chicago, Illinois, Frances Watson, IU McKinney Law Clinic, Indianapolis, Indiana
[1] The State appeals following the trial court's decision to grant Andrew M. Royer's successive petition for post-conviction relief based on newly discovered evidence. The State argues the trial court erred in granting Royer's petition for post-conviction relief and ordering a new trial. We affirm.
[2] We summarized the facts of the offense in our opinion on Royer's first petition for post-conviction relief as follows:
In November 2002, ninety-four year-old Helen Sailor lived in [Waterfall Highrise,] an apartment complex for elderly, disabled, and handicapped persons eligible for public assistance. On November 28, 2002, Sailor spent the day with relatives who drove her back to her apartment that evening. The following day, November 29, 2002, Sailor's home healthcare provider and two relatives entered her apartment and found her body. The contents of Sailor's dresser drawers had been emptied out, a lock box was partially pulled out from under the bed, and Sailor's keys and the money she usually kept tucked inside a Bible were missing. An autopsy revealed significant injuries to Sailor's neck, face, and hands, and a forensic pathologist concluded that the cause of Sailor's death was strangulation and the manner of death was homicide.
Royer v. State , 20A04-1106-PC-325, 2011 WL 6595351 at *1 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2011), trans. denied.
[3] The initial investigation yielded no suspects. The Elkhart Police Department formed a homicide unit in August 2003, and the Sailor murder was the first case assigned to the newly-formed homicide unit. At the time, the unit consisted of Lieutenant Paul Converse, Sergeant William Wargo, Lieutenant Peggy Snider, Detective Carl Conway, and Detective Mark Daggy. Detective Conway was the unit's lead detective on the Sailor murder.
[4] On September 2, 2003, Elkhart Police Officer Kruzynski pulled over a vehicle in which Lana Canen and Nina Porter were traveling. Officer Kruzynski arrested Canen on an outstanding warrant. He gave Porter a traffic ticket and allowed her to leave the scene. Detective Conway learned about the traffic stop,2 and he learned that Porter was Canen's neighbor. Detective Conway then questioned Porter about the Sailor murder, and during the interview, Porter stated that Canen made incriminating statements to her while they were spending time together on July 3, 2003. Porter also indicated that Canen and Royer would consume drugs together, and she described an incident in which Canen and Royer acted as if they were going to rob her. Sergeant Wargo and Lieutenant Snider also interviewed Canen on September 2, 2003. Canen denied murdering Sailor or ever visiting her apartment.
[5] On September 3, 2003, Detective Conway visited Royer's apartment at the Waterfall Highrise and asked Royer to come with him to a nearby police station for questioning. Royer agreed, and Detective Conway drove Royer two blocks to the police station. Detective Conway advised Royer of his Miranda3 rights at 9:34 a.m., and Royer signed a written waiver of his Miranda rights at 9:35 a.m. Detective Conway then began questioning him. Detective Conway did not audio or video record his initial questioning of Royer because he considered the initial stages of questioning to be a "pre-interview." (Tr.4 Vol. III at 4.)
[6] In the course of this interrogation, Royer gave two different stories implicating himself in Sailor's murder. In the first version, Royer stated that he and Canen went to Sailor's apartment to ask Sailor for money and that they killed Sailor when she refused. In the second version, Royer said that he and Canen went to Sailor's apartment and Sailor gave Canen some money, but then Royer returned to Sailor's apartment alone later in the evening to ask for more money and he killed Sailor when she refused.
[7] In Detective Conway's supplemental case report, he noted "it was obvious that [Royer] was becoming very confused and fatigued[,]" so Detective Conway decided to take a break. (Sup. P-C. R. Ex. 3; Tr. Vol. VI at 117.) Detective Conway then wrote in his supplemental case report:
After taking a break, it was obvious that Royer was becoming very mentally fatigued and was having a very hard time maintaining his concentration. Due to this reason, I decided to take a preliminary statement from Royer because of the admissions he had made that included several details about the crime scene that were not public knowledge.
(Tr. Vol. VI at 117-18.) Detective Conway began recording Royer's confession at approximately 1:30 p.m. Detective Conway asked Royer questions throughout the recorded statement. For instance, when Royer denied going anywhere else after visiting Canen on Thanksgiving night 2002, Detective Conway asked, (Pet. Ex. 18; Tr. Vol. VIII at 34.) Detective Conway asked Royer further leading questions regarding the decision to go to Sailor's apartment:
(Tr. Vol. VIII at 34-35.) The interrogation continued, and after recording Royer's confession, Detective Conway arrested Royer.
[8] Detective Conway interrogated Royer again on September 4, 2003, at which time Royer relayed a third rendition of events wherein he visited Sailor alone and killed her because she started "preaching at him." (Sup. P-C. R. Ex. 3; Tr. Vol. VI at 118.) Royer changed certain details over the course of the September 4, 2003, interrogation, and he gave a second recorded statement at the conclusion of the interrogation. While Royer said that he sold Sailor's jewelry at a local pawn shop, the pawn shop did not have a record confirming a sale from Royer. Detective Conway's unrecorded pre-interview of Royer on September 4 began at 8:25 a.m., and Detective Conway began taking Royer's second recorded statement at 11:56 a.m.
[9] The Elkhart Police Department asked Dennis Chapman, an Elkhart County forensic specialist,5 to examine latent fingerprints recovered from the Sailor murder scene and determine their owner. Prior to his employment for Elkhart County, Chapman had worked for the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") as a fingerprint examiner. In his role with the FBI, Chapman had compared inked prints6 to other inked prints on file in order to determine if they matched. He had not compared latent prints7 to inked prints for the FBI, and he had not received any latent print comparison training before reviewing the latent prints from the Sailor murder scene. Chapman had the latent prints for 189 days before he returned the prints to the Elkhart Police Department. Chapman submitted a report indicating one latent print found on a pill container in Sailor's apartment belonged to Canen.
[10] Then-Elkhart County Chief Deputy Prosecutor Vicki Becker8 was primarily responsible for initiating charges against Royer and Canen in connection with Sailor's murder. Then-Elkhart County Prosecutor Curtis T. Hill, Jr.,9 made the final decision and approved initiation of the charges. The State charged Royer with murder10 on September 9, 2003. The State did not charge Canen with murder until September 2, 2004.11
[11] In June 2004, after being charged but before trial, Royer agreed to an interview with Detective Daggy. Royer's attorney was present during the interview, and Royer waived his Miranda rights. Royer denied any involvement in Sailor's murder. He told Detective Daggy that on the day of Sailor's murder, he had attended a Thanksgiving meal and then returned to his apartment. He said he took a nap and then went to Martin's Super Market to buy beer. Royer indicated he then returned to his apartment and drank the beer. Detective Daggy subsequently learned that Martin's Super Market was closed on Thanksgiving.
[12] The court tried Canen and Royer together before a jury from August 8 to August 10, 2005. At trial, Porter testified that she and Canen were visiting each other and drinking together on July 3, 2003. During the course of the evening, Canen stated "no one was supposed to get hurt." (DA Tr. Vol. III at 704.) Porter also testified that Canen said, "Thanksgiving, thanks for giving death." (Id. at 707.) Porter explained that she met Royer through Canen and that Royer was easily influenced by Canen. For instance, Porter reported that when Canen asked Royer to stand outside in the rain without an umbrella for a half-hour, Royer followed her instructions without questioning her.
[13] Detective Conway testified at trial that the information he learned from Porter led him to interrogate Royer. Detective Conway testified that Royer "willingly" agreed to be interviewed on September 3, 2003, and that Royer "seemed pretty relaxed about the whole situation." (DA Tr. Vol. II at 482-83.)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v. State
...affirmed Judge Sutton's grant of Royer's successive petition for post-conviction relief and vacation of Royer's murder conviction. Royer, 166 N.E.3d at 380. We highlighted instances of Detective Conway's misconduct and concluded that Royer had not received a fair trial. Like Judge Sutton, w......
-
Tyson v. State
...affirmed Judge Sutton's grant of Royer's successive petition for post-conviction relief and vacation of Royer's murder conviction. Royer, 166 N.E.3d at 380. We highlighted instances of Detective Conway's misconduct and concluded that Royer had not received a fair trial. Like Judge Sutton, w......