Steinberg v. State

• Decision Date: 17 March 2011
• Docket Number: No. 53A01–1001–CR–16.,53A01–1001–CR–16.
• Citation: 941 N.E.2d 515
• Parties: Benjamin H. STEINBERG, Appellant–Defendant,v.STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

941 N.E.2d 515

Benjamin H. STEINBERG, Appellant–Defendant,

v.STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff.

No. 53A01–1001–CR–16.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Jan. 21, 2011.Transfer Denied March 17, 2011.

Stacy R. Uliana, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellant.Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Ellen H. Meilaender, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

OPINION

CRONE, Judge.

Case Summary

In January 2005, Benjamin H. Steinberg purchased an AR–15 semiautomatic rifle equipped with a laser sight, a flash suppressor, and high-velocity ammunition. Steinberg showed the firearm to his roommates and told one of them that “if anything ever happened he could melt his gun to nothing” with welding tanks that he had in the back of his SUV. In the predawn hours of February 8, 2005, Steinberg drove alongside a Monroe County correctional officer who was on his way home from work and shot him in the head, killing him instantly. Later that morning, a dirty and frantic Steinberg arrived at his apartment with blackened hands and told his roommate, “Somebody was coming and I f* * *ed up.” The next day, Steinberg told his roommate not to get a newspaper. Steinberg's roommate got a newspaper, read about the shooting, and relayed his suspicions about Steinberg's involvement to the police. Ultimately, Steinberg was charged with and convicted of murder and sentenced to sixty-five years in prison.

On appeal, Steinberg raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court violated the Federal and Indiana Wiretap Acts by admitting recordings of phone calls that Steinberg made to his parents while in jail; (2) if not, whether the trial court erred in not further redacting those recordings; (3) whether the trial court erred in admitting a 2003 email in which Steinberg asked whether there were any “extenuating circumstances relating to murder that negate personal liability”; (4) whether the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument when he stated that the lesser-included offense of involuntary manslaughter did not apply in this case; (5) whether the trial court committed fundamental error in admitting evidence of Steinberg's pretrial references to legal counsel; (6) whether the trial court erred in not finding Steinberg's mental health to be a mitigating factor at sentencing; and (7) whether Steinberg's sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. Finding no reversible error and that Steinberg has failed to establish that his sentence is inappropriate, we affirm his conviction and sentence.

Facts and Procedural History¹

The facts most favorable to the jury's verdict indicate that in 2005, Steinberg shared an apartment with Kenith Craft and Ian Coleman in Bloomington. In January 2005, Steinberg purchased an AR–15 semiautomatic rifle from a man in Martinsville for $800 in cash. The AR–15 was equipped with a bipod, laser sight, flash suppressor, and copper-jacketed ammunition capable of piercing the side of a motor vehicle.² Steinberg showed Craft and Coleman the AR–15, which he referred to as his “new toy.” Tr. at 138.

Between approximately 7:00 and 8:30 p.m. on February 7, 2005, Steinberg received email confirmations from a gambling website regarding his requested withdrawals, which totaled $18,200. Later that evening, Steinberg, Craft, and Coleman met at a bar near their apartment. Eventually, Coleman left the bar and went to his girlfriend's apartment. Steinberg and Craft went outside the bar for a smoke, and Steinberg showed Craft two oxyacetylene welding tanks in the back of his Oldsmobile Bravada SUV. Steinberg told Craft that “if anything ever happened he could melt his gun to nothing.” Id. at 137. Steinberg also told Craft that he had to be somewhere at 1:15 a.m. After midnight, Steinberg drove Craft back to their apartment and told him that he could play online poker on Steinberg's account and keep any money that he won. Steinberg left the apartment. Craft played poker on Steinberg's computer for approximately an hour and went to bed.

Early on the morning of February 8, Michael Helton was driving his semi truck northbound on State Road 37 south of Bloomington when he saw the headlights of two approaching vehicles traveling southbound.³ One of the vehicles, a pickup truck, suddenly veered off the road and crashed into a limestone embankment. The second vehicle continued traveling southbound. Helton stopped and flagged down another trucker, who called 911.

Police determined that the driver of the pickup was William Brand, a correctional officer from the Monroe County Jail. Brand had been shot through the head and killed by a high-velocity copper-jacketed bullet. The bullet had been fired from a weapon positioned directly to Brand's left. The driver's side window of Brand's pickup was shattered, and a bullet had penetrated the driver's side door frame, on which police found gunshot residue. The forensic pathologist recovered from Brand's skull a copper-jacketed bullet fragment that was consistent with ammunition that can be fired by an AR–15. Police could not conclusively determine whether one or two shots had been fired and whether Brand's skull had been penetrated by a bullet or by a bullet fragment that had ricocheted off the door frame.

Later on the morning of February 8, as Craft was getting ready for work, a pale and frantic Steinberg entered the apartment. He was dirty and appeared to have been crying, and his hands were black. Steinberg told Craft, “I f* * *ed up man I f* * *ed up, oh my God. The car slide [sic] down the road. Somebody was coming and I f* * *ed up, I f* * *ed up.” Id. at 149. Steinberg told Craft that he had come home to get a checkbook and quickly left the apartment.

The next day, February 9, Steinberg and Craft had a brief conversation in their apartment. Steinberg told Craft, “If anyone comes around asking any questions or looking for me tell them the last time I talked to you I was going to Las Vegas. If you do anything, don't go get a newspaper today. If you get a newspaper don't bring it into this apartment, destroy it.” Id. at 152. After the conversation, Steinberg left the apartment. Craft got a newspaper and read the account of Brand's shooting. Craft recalled Steinberg's recent behavior and comments and said, “Oh f* * *k.” Id. at 154. When Craft was at lunch, Steinberg called him and asked if “anyone [had] been around.” Id. at 160. Craft told Steinberg that no one had been around and that the newspaper article had indicated that the vehicle suspected of being involved in the shooting was a “late model sedan.” Id.⁴ Steinberg replied, “Okay, so I'm cool.” Id. Steinberg told Craft to tell Coleman that he “[n]ever saw that thing,” which Craft took to mean the AR–15. Id.

Later that day, Craft discussed the matter with Coleman and called the Indiana State Police number listed in the newspaper article. Police interviewed Craft and Coleman and arrested Steinberg at a New Albany hotel on a probation violation based on his alleged possession of a firearm. Police also seized Steinberg's computer and SUV, in which they found molten metal fragments and recently purchased tools, including a shovel.⁵ Police did not find the welding tanks that Steinberg had shown to Craft, nor did they find Steinberg's AR–15.⁶

Later that month, while Steinberg was incarcerated, he wrote a letter to Craft instructing him to “Talk to Noone [sic] unless my lawyer is with you” and “don't say sh*t w/out my lawyer—No matter what they say.” State's Ex. 27. Steinberg also wrote letters to two friends, asking them to impersonate a police detective to determine whether police had obtained a surveillance videotape from a gas station near the intersection of State Road 37 and Highway 50 in Bedford. In one of the letters, Steinberg specified that the videotape was “from about 2–3 am on the early morning of Tues, February the 8th.” State's Ex. 48.

On October 17, 2007, the State charged Steinberg with murder. On October 23, 2009, a jury found Steinberg guilty as charged. On December 16, 2009, the trial court sentenced Steinberg to sixty-five years in prison. This appeal ensued. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

Discussion and Decision

I. Admission of Recordings

At trial, the State offered into evidence recordings of three collect phone calls that Steinberg made to his parents while he was incarcerated in the Floyd County Jail following his arrest in New Albany. During those conversations, Steinberg stated, among other things, that he had given his vehicle and cell phone and a gun he had purchased in Martinsville to masked men who killed a jailer in a drive-by shooting in Bloomington; that he had read about the shooting in the paper; and that he was being framed for the homicide because of his extensive knowledge of and involvement in nanotechnology. He also stated that he had planned on having his SUV repainted and reupholstered because he had been framed but that he had decided not to do so. The trial court admitted the recordings over Steinberg's objection that they had been obtained in violation of the Federal and Indiana Wiretap Acts.

Steinberg contends that the trial court erred in admitting the recordings. Our standard of review is well settled:

We will afford a trial court's decision to exclude evidence great deference on appeal, and will reverse only for a manifest abuse of discretion that denies the defendant a fair trial. An abuse of discretion occurs when a decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial court.

Lovitt v. State, 915 N.E.2d 1040, 1043 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (citation omitted). We may affirm a trial court's admissibility ruling on any theory supported by the record. Leitch v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1284, 1286 (Ind.Ct.App.2000).

A. Federal Wiretap Act

“The Federal Wiretap Act authorizes federal and state law enforcement officers to intercept wire, oral, or electronic...