MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any Feb 13 2017, 5:38 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael Frischkorn Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Frischkorn Law LLC Attorney General of Indiana Fortville, Indiana Justin F. Roebel Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Charles Goodman, February 13, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 30A04-1608-CR-1937 v. Appeal from the Hancock Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Terry Snow, Judge Appellee-Plaintiff. Trial Court Cause No. 30D01-1507-F5-1145
Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A04-1608-CR-1937 | February 13, 2017 Page 1 of 7 Case Summary and Issues [1] Following a jury trial, Charles Goodman was convicted of operating a vehicle
while intoxicated causing death, a Level 4 felony, and driving with a suspended
license, a Class A infraction. The trial court sentenced Goodman to six years in
the Indiana Department of Correction, with three years suspended. Goodman
appeals, raising two issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court abused its
discretion in admitting evidence, and (2) whether his sentence is inappropriate
in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. Concluding any error in
the admission of evidence is harmless and Goodman’s sentence is not
inappropriate, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History [2] On July 28, 2015, Goodman drove a bus full of churchgoers, including
children, to a church convention in Ohio. While heading eastbound on
Interstate 70 east of Indianapolis, the bus veered off the interstate, struck a tree,
and flipped over. When police officers arrived at the scene, they discovered
Goodman and a child, J.W., trapped under the bus. When the bus was lifted,
J.W. was pronounced dead. Goodman was airlifted to Methodist Hospital in
Indianapolis. There, he stated he fell asleep while driving and consented to a
blood draw. Goodman’s blood tested positive for a metabolite of cocaine.
Several other bus passengers were also injured and required hospital care.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A04-1608-CR-1937 | February 13, 2017 Page 2 of 7 [3] On July 30, 2015, the State charged Goodman with reckless homicide, a Level
5 felony, and driving with a suspended license, a Class A infraction. On
October 20, 2015, the State amended the charging information to include a
count of operating a vehicle while intoxicated causing death as a Level 4 felony.
At trial, the State moved to admit a photograph of J.W.’s corpse. Goodman
objected, claiming the photograph was unduly prejudicial. The trial court
overruled his objection. In addition, an Indiana State Police Department
accident reconstructionist testified the cause of the crash was driver fatigue
“coupled with the fact of [Goodman’s] blood test results . . . .” Transcript,
Volume III, at 13. The jury found Goodman guilty of operating a vehicle while
intoxicated causing death and driving with a suspended license. The trial court
entered judgment of conviction and sentenced Goodman to six years in the
Department of Correction, with three years suspended.
Discussion and Decision I. Admission of Evidence A. Standard of Review [4] We review a trial court’s admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion.
McVey v. State, 863 N.E.2d 434, 440 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. “An
abuse of discretion occurs if a trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic
and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court.” Id. We reverse a
trial court’s erroneous decision to admit evidence only when the decision affects
a party’s substantial rights. McVey, 863 N.E.2d at 440. However, “[a]ny error
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A04-1608-CR-1937 | February 13, 2017 Page 3 of 7 caused by the admission of evidence is harmless error for which we will not
reverse a conviction if the erroneously admitted evidence was cumulative of
other evidence appropriately admitted.” Id. In other words, improperly
admitted evidence “is harmless error when the conviction is supported by such
substantial independent evidence of guilt as to satisfy the reviewing court that
there is no substantial likelihood that the questioned evidence contributed to the
conviction.” Wickizer v. State, 626 N.E.2d 795, 800 (Ind. 1993).
B. Photograph [5] Goodman contends the trial court abused its discretion in admitting a
photograph of J.W.’s corpse. Specifically, he claims the photograph was
unduly prejudicial. The State counters the photograph allowed it to meet its
burden of proof by showing J.W.’s identity and the accident caused his death.
[6] Despite some photographs’ potential to arouse the passions of jurors, a
photograph is admissible unless its probative value is substantially outweighed
by the danger of unfair prejudice. Lee v. State, 735 N.E.2d 1169, 1172 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2000) (citing Ind. Evidence Rule 403).
Photographs depicting matters that a witness describes in testimony are generally admissible, and photographs depicting the crime scene are admissible as long as they are relevant and competent aids to the jury. The fact that a photograph or videotape may depict gruesome details of a crime is not a sufficient basis for exclusion.
Id. (citations omitted).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A04-1608-CR-1937 | February 13, 2017 Page 4 of 7 [7] At the outset, we note the State’s claim the evidence was probative to the extent
it satisfied the elements of the crime of driving while intoxicated causing death
is disingenuous. Certainly, the photograph did lend credence to the State’s
theory J.W. died as a result of the accident, but we reject the State’s assertion it
could not satisfy the element of proving J.W.’s identity and death through other
means. In fact, even without the photograph, it is apparent from the record
J.W. was the victim of the crime. Nonetheless, we conclude any error in the
admission of the photograph is harmless. The crime required the State to prove
Goodman caused J.W.’s death when operating a vehicle with a schedule I or II
controlled substance or its metabolite in his blood. Ind. Code § 9-30-5-5(b)(2).
The State presented sufficient evidence establishing Goodman was driving the
bus, J.W. was a passenger on that bus, the bus veered off the road and crashed,
J.W. perished, and shortly following the accident, Goodman’s blood tested
positive for a metabolite of cocaine. See Ind. Code § 35-48-2-6(b)(4) (listing
cocaine as a schedule II narcotic). Therefore, even assuming the trial court
erred in admitting the photograph, its admission does not amount to reversible
error.
II. Inappropriate Sentence [8] Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides, “The Court may revise a sentence
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any Feb 13 2017, 5:38 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael Frischkorn Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Frischkorn Law LLC Attorney General of Indiana Fortville, Indiana Justin F. Roebel Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Charles Goodman, February 13, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 30A04-1608-CR-1937 v. Appeal from the Hancock Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Terry Snow, Judge Appellee-Plaintiff. Trial Court Cause No. 30D01-1507-F5-1145
Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A04-1608-CR-1937 | February 13, 2017 Page 1 of 7 Case Summary and Issues [1] Following a jury trial, Charles Goodman was convicted of operating a vehicle
while intoxicated causing death, a Level 4 felony, and driving with a suspended
license, a Class A infraction. The trial court sentenced Goodman to six years in
the Indiana Department of Correction, with three years suspended. Goodman
appeals, raising two issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court abused its
discretion in admitting evidence, and (2) whether his sentence is inappropriate
in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. Concluding any error in
the admission of evidence is harmless and Goodman’s sentence is not
inappropriate, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History [2] On July 28, 2015, Goodman drove a bus full of churchgoers, including
children, to a church convention in Ohio. While heading eastbound on
Interstate 70 east of Indianapolis, the bus veered off the interstate, struck a tree,
and flipped over. When police officers arrived at the scene, they discovered
Goodman and a child, J.W., trapped under the bus. When the bus was lifted,
J.W. was pronounced dead. Goodman was airlifted to Methodist Hospital in
Indianapolis. There, he stated he fell asleep while driving and consented to a
blood draw. Goodman’s blood tested positive for a metabolite of cocaine.
Several other bus passengers were also injured and required hospital care.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A04-1608-CR-1937 | February 13, 2017 Page 2 of 7 [3] On July 30, 2015, the State charged Goodman with reckless homicide, a Level
5 felony, and driving with a suspended license, a Class A infraction. On
October 20, 2015, the State amended the charging information to include a
count of operating a vehicle while intoxicated causing death as a Level 4 felony.
At trial, the State moved to admit a photograph of J.W.’s corpse. Goodman
objected, claiming the photograph was unduly prejudicial. The trial court
overruled his objection. In addition, an Indiana State Police Department
accident reconstructionist testified the cause of the crash was driver fatigue
“coupled with the fact of [Goodman’s] blood test results . . . .” Transcript,
Volume III, at 13. The jury found Goodman guilty of operating a vehicle while
intoxicated causing death and driving with a suspended license. The trial court
entered judgment of conviction and sentenced Goodman to six years in the
Department of Correction, with three years suspended.
Discussion and Decision I. Admission of Evidence A. Standard of Review [4] We review a trial court’s admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion.
McVey v. State, 863 N.E.2d 434, 440 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. “An
abuse of discretion occurs if a trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic
and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court.” Id. We reverse a
trial court’s erroneous decision to admit evidence only when the decision affects
a party’s substantial rights. McVey, 863 N.E.2d at 440. However, “[a]ny error
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A04-1608-CR-1937 | February 13, 2017 Page 3 of 7 caused by the admission of evidence is harmless error for which we will not
reverse a conviction if the erroneously admitted evidence was cumulative of
other evidence appropriately admitted.” Id. In other words, improperly
admitted evidence “is harmless error when the conviction is supported by such
substantial independent evidence of guilt as to satisfy the reviewing court that
there is no substantial likelihood that the questioned evidence contributed to the
conviction.” Wickizer v. State, 626 N.E.2d 795, 800 (Ind. 1993).
B. Photograph [5] Goodman contends the trial court abused its discretion in admitting a
photograph of J.W.’s corpse. Specifically, he claims the photograph was
unduly prejudicial. The State counters the photograph allowed it to meet its
burden of proof by showing J.W.’s identity and the accident caused his death.
[6] Despite some photographs’ potential to arouse the passions of jurors, a
photograph is admissible unless its probative value is substantially outweighed
by the danger of unfair prejudice. Lee v. State, 735 N.E.2d 1169, 1172 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2000) (citing Ind. Evidence Rule 403).
Photographs depicting matters that a witness describes in testimony are generally admissible, and photographs depicting the crime scene are admissible as long as they are relevant and competent aids to the jury. The fact that a photograph or videotape may depict gruesome details of a crime is not a sufficient basis for exclusion.
Id. (citations omitted).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A04-1608-CR-1937 | February 13, 2017 Page 4 of 7 [7] At the outset, we note the State’s claim the evidence was probative to the extent
it satisfied the elements of the crime of driving while intoxicated causing death
is disingenuous. Certainly, the photograph did lend credence to the State’s
theory J.W. died as a result of the accident, but we reject the State’s assertion it
could not satisfy the element of proving J.W.’s identity and death through other
means. In fact, even without the photograph, it is apparent from the record
J.W. was the victim of the crime. Nonetheless, we conclude any error in the
admission of the photograph is harmless. The crime required the State to prove
Goodman caused J.W.’s death when operating a vehicle with a schedule I or II
controlled substance or its metabolite in his blood. Ind. Code § 9-30-5-5(b)(2).
The State presented sufficient evidence establishing Goodman was driving the
bus, J.W. was a passenger on that bus, the bus veered off the road and crashed,
J.W. perished, and shortly following the accident, Goodman’s blood tested
positive for a metabolite of cocaine. See Ind. Code § 35-48-2-6(b)(4) (listing
cocaine as a schedule II narcotic). Therefore, even assuming the trial court
erred in admitting the photograph, its admission does not amount to reversible
error.
II. Inappropriate Sentence [8] Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides, “The Court may revise a sentence
authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, the
Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense
and the character of the offender.” The defendant bears the burden of
persuading this court his or her sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A04-1608-CR-1937 | February 13, 2017 Page 5 of 7 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). Whether we regard a sentence
as inappropriate turns on “the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the
crime, the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light
in a given case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). The
principal role of appellate review is to “leaven the outliers,” not achieve the
perceived “correct” result in each case. Id. at 1225.
[9] The advisory sentence is the starting point the legislature selected as an
appropriate sentence for the crime committed. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d
482, 494 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). Here,
Goodman was convicted of driving a vehicle while intoxicated causing death as
a Level 4 felony. Indiana Code section 35-50-2-5.5 states a person who
commits a Level 4 felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between two
and twelve years, with the advisory sentence being six years. The trial court
sentenced Goodman to six years in the Department of Correction, with three
years suspended.
[10] As to the nature of the offenses, we note Goodman was in a position of care
and custody over the passengers of the bus, some of whom were children, and
he accepted this responsibility with a suspended license and a metabolite of
cocaine in his blood. As to his character, Goodman failed to take responsibility
for his crimes, claiming others must have planted the cocaine in food or
medicine he previously consumed and blaming the accident on mechanical
issues with the bus. We further note Goodman only received the advisory
sentence with half of that suspended to probation. We conclude Goodman’s
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A04-1608-CR-1937 | February 13, 2017 Page 6 of 7 sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his
character.
Conclusion [11] The admission of the photograph was at most harmless error and Goodman’s
sentence is not inappropriate. Accordingly, we affirm.
[12] Affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and Barnes, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A04-1608-CR-1937 | February 13, 2017 Page 7 of 7