Hirman E. Jackson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 24, 2017
• Docket: 79A04-1612-CR-2936
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED court except for the purpose of establishing Aug 24 2017, 6:16 am

the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK Indiana Supreme Court estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Bruce W. Graham Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Graham Law Firm P.C. Attorney General of Indiana Lafayette, Indiana Matthew B. MacKenzie Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Hirman E. Jackson, August 24, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 79A04-1612-CR-2936 v. Appeal from the Tippecanoe Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Thomas H. Busch, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 79C01-1603-F1-4

Najam, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1612-CR-02936 | August 24, 2017 Page 1 of 13 Statement of the Case [1] Hirman Jackson appeals his convictions1 for five counts of attempted murder,

as Level 1 felonies (Counts I-V); two counts of aggravated battery, as Level 3

felonies (Counts VI and VII); two counts of battery with a deadly weapon, as

Level 5 felonies (Counts VIII and IX); two counts of battery resulting in serious

bodily injury, as Level 5 felonies (Counts X and XI); one count of criminal

recklessness, as a Level 5 felony (Count XII); one count of pointing a firearm,

as a Level 6 felony (Count XIII); one count of unlawful possession of a firearm

by a serious violent felon, as a Level 4 felony (Count XIV); a sentencing

enhancement based on the unlawful use of a firearm in the commission of a

felony (Count XV); and a habitual offender sentencing enhancement (Count

XVI). He raises two issues for our review, which we restate as follows:

1. Whether the court committed fundamental error when it instructed the jury on transferred intent.

2. Whether the court committed fundamental error when it permitted the State to inform the jury as to how the evidence demonstrated Jackson’s intent to commit the crimes alleged.

[2] We affirm.

1 This was a bifurcated trial. The jury convicted Jackson of Counts I through XIII during the first phase of the trial. Jackson waived his right to a jury trial for the second phase, and, after a bench trial, the trial court convicted him of Counts XIV and XVI. The court dismissed Count XV, unlawful use of a firearm, during phase two of the trial.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1612-CR-02936 | August 24, 2017 Page 2 of 13 Facts and Procedural History [3] On February 12, 2016, Shantaya Kirk, along with three other adults and one

young child, drove from Chicago, Illinois, to Lafayette, Indiana, to return $500

she had borrowed from Jackson. Kirk and the others met Jackson at his

residence. Kirk spoke with Jackson inside his apartment, but she then returned

to the car where the others waited. Jackson also went out to the vehicle and

stood next to the passenger door.

[4] After a few moments, Jackson fired a gun into the vehicle several times. Kirk

instructed the driver to drive away from Jackson. Jackson continued firing at

the vehicle until all of the bullets had been fired.2 Jackson shot Kirk once in the

shoulder and once in the forearm. Kirk sustained a broken wrist and continues

to have pain and numbness in her left shoulder. Jackson shot Steven Allen, one

of the other adult passengers in the vehicle, in the head. Allen had a seizure as

a result of the gunshot wound. A surgeon removed the bullet and part of

Allen’s skull to allow the swelling in his brain to lessen. Allen continues to

have seizures, he has problems with his left arm and leg, and he has behavioral

and emotional issues as a result of the damage to his brain. The other

occupants of the vehicles were uninjured.

2 During the trial, Jackson admitted to firing the gun multiple times; however, he argued that he had acted in self-defense.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1612-CR-02936 | August 24, 2017 Page 3 of 13 [5] The State charged Jackson with five counts of attempted murder, two counts of

aggravated battery, two counts of battery with a deadly weapon, two counts of

battery resulting in serious bodily injury, one count of shooting a firearm, one

count of pointing a gun, and one count of unlawful possession, all as felonies.

The State also charged Jackson with a sentencing enhancement based on the

unlawful use of a firearm in the commission of a felony and a habitual offender

sentencing enhancement.

[6] At the close of Jackson’s ensuing jury trial, the court instructed the jury as

follows, without objection:

The crime of attempted murder is defined 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 killing that person.

Count I

Before you may convict the Defendant of attempted murder as charged in Count I, the State must have proved each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. The Defendant

2. acting with the specific intent to kill Shantaya Kirk

3. did fire a deadly weapon at said Shantaya Kirk

4. which was conduct constituting a substantial step toward the commission of the intended crime of killing Shantaya Kirk; and

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1612-CR-02936 | August 24, 2017 Page 4 of 13 5. did not act in self-defense.

If the State failed to prove each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the Defendant not guilty of the crime of attempted murder, a felony, charged in Count I.

[7] Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 81. The State’s charges with respect to the other

victims of attempted murder read the same, except for the different names. The

court also gave the jury the following instruction, again without objection:

“Under the doctrine of transferred intent, the intent to harm one person may be

treated as the intent to harm a different person when, through mistake or in-

advertence, violence directed towards one person results in the injury to a

different person.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 93.

[8] The State had also provided State’s Proposed Instruction 1, which read as

follows: “Intent to kill may be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon in a

manner likely to cause death or great bodily injury, in addition to the nature of

the attack, and the circumstances surrounding the crime.” Appellant’s App.

Vol. II at 58. The trial court rejected the proposed instruction but gave the State

permission to argue the underlying point in its closing arguments. The State

then made the following statements during its closing argument, without

objection:

We know that [Jackson] shot [Kirk]. Acting with the specific intent to kill. Again we can’t figure out exactly what a person is thinking but we look at the totality of the circumstances. Intent to kill may be interpreted from the use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death or great bodily injury in addition to

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1612-CR-02936 | August 24, 2017 Page 5 of 13 the nature of the attack and the circumstances surrounding a crime. This is the state of case law in the state of Indiana. This is how we can look at intent to kill in this case. It can be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon [in] a manner likely to cause death or great bodily harm along with the nature of the totality of the circumstances, the circumstances surrounding it.

Tr. Vol. IV at 205-06. The jury found Jackson guilty on Counts I through XIII.

After a bench trial on the remaining charges, the trial court found Jackson

guilty on Counts XIV and XVI. The court then sentenced him to ninety-two

years in the Department of Correction.3 This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision Issue One: Transferred Intent Jury Instruction

[9] Jackson asserts that the trial court committed fundamental error when it

instructed the jury on transferred intent. As the Indiana Supreme Court has

explained:

Appellate courts may, on rare occasions, resort to the fundamental error exception to address on direct appeal an otherwise procedurally defaulted claim. However, fundamental error is extremely narrow and available only when the record reveals a clearly blatant violation of basic and elementary principles, when the harm or potential for harm cannot be

3 The court entered judgement on Counts I through V, XIV, and XVI. The court sentenced Jackson based on Counts I, II, XIV, and XVI. The court concluded that Counts III, IV, and V merged into Counts I and II for purposes of sentencing. The Court declined to enter judgment on the remaining guilty verdicts.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1612-CR-02936 | August 24, 2017 Page 6 of 13 denied, and when the violation is so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible.

Shoun v. State, 67 N.E.3d 635, 640 (Ind. 2017) (citations omitted). With respect

to jury instructions, we usually consider: “(1) whether the tendered instruction

correctly states the law; (2) whether there was evidence presented at trial to

support giving the instruction; and (3) whether the substance of the instruction

was covered by other instructions that were given.” McCowan v. State, 27

N.E.3d 760, 763-64 (Ind. 2015) (citations omitted). We consider the

instructions as a whole and do not reverse unless the whole of the instructions

misled the jury as to the law in the case. Id. at 764.

[10] It is well-established that the specific intent to kill is a necessary element of

attempted murder. A jury instruction

which purports to set forth the elements which must be proven in order to convict of the crime of attempted murder must inform the jury that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, with intent to kill the victim, engaged in conduct which was a substantial step toward such killing.

Spradlin v. State, 569 N.E 2d 948, 950 (Ind. 1991).

[11] Here, again, the trial court instructed the jury as follows:

The crime of attempted murder is defined 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 killing that person.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1612-CR-02936 | August 24, 2017 Page 7 of 13 Count I

Before you may convict the Defendant of attempted murder as charged in Count I, the State must have proved each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

4. which was conduct constituting a substantial step toward the commission of the intended crime of killing Shantaya Kirk; and

5. did not act in self-defense.

If the State failed to prove each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the Defendant not guilty of the crime of attempted murder, a felony, charged in Count I.

Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 81 (emphasis added). The “specific intent”

language was repeated in each of the other four counts in the jury instruction on

attempted murder.

[12] The trial court also provided the following instruction on transferred intent to

the jury: “[u]nder the doctrine of transferred intent, the intent to harm one

person may be treated as the intent to harm a different person when, through

mistake or inadvertence, violence directed towards one person results in the

injury to a different person.” Id. at 93.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1612-CR-02936 | August 24, 2017 Page 8 of 13 [13] The Indiana Supreme Court has permitted the doctrine of transferred intent to

be applied to attempted murder charges. In Blanche v. State, 690 N.E.2d 709,

711 (Ind. 1998), the defendant was convicted of, among other things, attempted

murder. The defendant raised several issues on appeal, including whether the

evidence was sufficient to support his convictions and whether the jury was

properly instructed on the specific intent requirement for attempted murder.

During its discussion on the sufficiency of the evidence, the Indiana Supreme

Court held that under the doctrine of transferred intent

a defendant’s intent to kill one person is transferred when, by mistake or inadvertence, the defendant kills a third person; the defendant may be found guilty of the murder of the person who was killed, even though the defendant intended to kill another. White v. State, 638 N.E.2d 785, 786 (Ind. 1994). This doctrine also applies to the intent necessary for attempted murder. Straub v. State, 567 N.E.2d 87, 90-1 (Ind. 1991) (establishing that state need not introduce evidence that the defendant intended to kill the actual victim, but only that the defendant intended to kill someone).

Id. at 712.

[14] Here, Jackson does not challenge whether the language in the attempted

murder instruction properly instructs the jury that a defendant is required to

have specific intent to kill in order to be convicted of attempted murder.

Rather, he asserts that the trial court committed fundamental error when it also

provided the transferred intent instruction to the jury because it “blurred the

distinction between specific and general intent and rendered the entire pool of

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1612-CR-02936 | August 24, 2017 Page 9 of 13 jury instructions confusing and prejudicial.” Appellant’s Br. at 16. To support

his assertion, Jackson relies on Beasley v. State, in which the State charged the

defendant with attempted murder, and the trial court gave the following jury

instruction:

TO CONVICT THE DEFENDANT OF ATTEMPTED MURDER, THE STATE MUST HAVE PROVED EACH OF THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS:

THE DEFENDANT LARRY E. BEASLEY

(1) KNOWINGLY OR INTENTIONALLY.

(2) ENGAGED IN CONDUCT BY KNOWINGLY STRIKING WITH A DEADLY WEAPON, A KNIFE, THE PERSON OF BEVERLY PRESTON, RESULTING IN SERIOUS BODILY INJURY.

(3) WHICH CONDUCT CONSTITUTES A SUBSTANTIAL STEP TOWARD THE KNOWING OR INTENTIONAL KILLING OF ANOTHER HUMAN BEING.

IF THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE EACH OF THE ELEMENTS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, THE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE FOUND NOT GUILTY.

IF THE STATE DID PROVE EACH OF THE ELEMENTS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, THEN YOU SHOULD FIND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OF ATTEMPTED MURDER, A CLASS A FELONY.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1612-CR-02936 | August 24, 2017 Page 10 of 13 643 N.E.2d 346, 347 (Ind. 1994). On appeal, the Indiana Supreme Court held

that the jury instruction constituted fundamental error because the jury

could convict the defendant of attempted murder if he only acted

knowingly. The court held that, “although we usually evaluate jury

instructions as a whole, where the trial court lists the elements of attempted

murder and includes an incorrect mens rea, this error cannot be cured by

another instruction.” Id. at 348.

[15] The present case is distinguishable from Beasley. The court in Beasley made it

clear that the error could not be cured by another instruction when the elements

of attempted murder included an incorrect mens rea. Here, however, the court

properly instructed the jury on the elements of attempted murder, and the

instructions make it clear to the jury that specific intent to kill is a necessary

requirement for the offense of attempted murder. This transferred intent

instruction did not introduce a new level of intent but, instead, referenced the

intent required for the underlying offense.

[16] When considered as a whole, the instructions did not mislead the jury. See

McCowan, 27 N.E.3d at 764. Accordingly, we cannot say that the trial court

committed fundamental error when it instructed the jury.

Issue Two: The State’s Closing Argument

[17] Jackson also asserts that the court erred by permitting the State to include the

language from the State’s Proposed Jury Instruction 1, which the court refused

to read to the jury, in the State’s closing argument to the jury. But as an initial Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1612-CR-02936 | August 24, 2017 Page 11 of 13 matter we note that Jackson did not object during the State’s closing argument.

Further, he does not argue on appeal that the alleged error was fundamental

error. As such, we conclude that Jackson has not preserved this issue for

appellate review. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a).

[18] Jackson’s waiver notwithstanding, no error occurred on this issue. The trial

court rejected the proposed instruction but gave the State permission to argue

the point in its closing argument. The State then argued as follows:

We know that [Jackson] shot [Kirk]. Acting with the specific intent to kill. Again we can’t figure out exactly what a person is thinking but we look at the totality of the circumstances. Intent to kill may be interpreted from the use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death or great bodily injury in addition to the nature of the attack and the circumstances surrounding a crime. This is the state of case law in the state of Indiana. This is how we can look at intent to kill in this case. It can be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon a manner likely to cause death or great bodily harm along with the nature of the totality of the circumstances, the circumstances surrounding it.

Tr. Vol. IV at 205-06.

[19] As we have explained:

[i]t is well settled that the proper scope of final argument is within the trial court’s sound discretion. Taylor v. State, 457 N.E.2d 594, 599 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983). On appeal, we will not find an abuse of discretion unless the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Id. In seeking reversal of a conviction, however, it is incumbent upon the appellant to establish that the trial court’s

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1612-CR-02936 | August 24, 2017 Page 12 of 13 abuse of discretion was “clearly prejudicial” to his rights. See id.; Rouster v. State, 600 N.E.2d 1342, 1347 (Ind. 1992).

Nelson v. State, 792 N.E.2d 588, 591-92 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans denied.

[20] In support of his argument, Jackson cites Dill v. State, where our Supreme Court

held that “instructions that unnecessarily emphasize one particular evidentiary

fact, witness, or phase of the case have long been disapproved.” 741 N.E.2d

1230, 1232 (Ind. 2001). However, again, the issue in the instant appeal is not

whether the trial court provided an improper instruction to the jury but whether

the court properly allowed the State to inform the jury of the State’s evidentiary

basis for Jackson’s intent. “[T]he mere fact that a jury may not be instructed on

a certain point of law does not lead to the conclusion that argument concerning

that point of law is also improper.” Weis v. State, 825 N.E.2d 896, 904 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2005). The State’s comments during closing argument were not improper

or misleading. Accordingly, we cannot say that the trial court erred when it

allowed the State to make those statements during its closing argument, and we

affirm Jackson’s convictions.

[21] Affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Brown, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1612-CR-02936 | August 24, 2017 Page 13 of 13