« Law - Changing role of grandparents? | Main | Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 5 today (and 7 NFP) »
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court reverses Jennings County murder conviction
In Rohr v. State of Indiana, a 10-page, 5-0 opinion, Justice Dickson writes:
The defendant, Aaron Michael Rohr, was convicted for the murder of five-year-old Samuel Moore and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility for parole. In this direct appeal, the defendant seeks appellate relief as to the following issues: (1) sufficiency of evidence; (2) entitlement to change of venue due to pretrial publicity; (3) exclusion of witnesses; (4) exclusion of documentary evidence; (5) comments by the judge during trial; and (6) sentencing proce-dure. Finding substantial error in the exclusion of testimony of two defense witnesses, we reverse and remand for a new trial. * * *Because we find the issue determinative, we first address the defendant's contention that his right to a fair trial was denied when the trial court prohibited him from calling and presenting the testimony of two witnesses, Roseanne Palmer and Melissa Scott. The State responds that the exclusion, as a ruling on discovery matters, should be affirmed because of the wide discretionary latitude given to trial judges, or alternatively, if the exclusion was error, it was harmless and thus not grounds for reversal. * * *
Upon reviewing the record and in light of all the evidence, we are unable to conclude that the trial court's exclusion of Roseanne Palmer and Melissa Scott as defense witnesses "is sufficiently minor so as not to affect the defendant's substantial rights." * * * We decline the State's urging that we affirm on grounds of harmless error. We reverse the defendant's conviction. * * *
Having determined that a new trial is required due to trial error, we also address the issue of sufficiency of the evidence raised by the appellant. This involves determining whether, based on the evidence presented at trial, sufficient evidence exists to support the conviction. * * * If the proof of the defendant's guilt was insufficient in light of the evidence actually presented at his trial, he is not subject to retrial but is entitled to an acquittal. * * *
Mere presence at the crime scene is insufficient proof to support a conviction, but pres-ence at the scene coupled with other circumstances tending to show participation in the crime may be sufficient to sustain a guilty verdict. * * * Such circumstantial evidence is sufficient if it allows for reasonable inferences enabling the jury to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. * * *
[I]n this case, we find that the evidence favorable to the verdict, together with its reasonable inferences, is sufficient for a reasonable jury to find each element of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. While the evidence without the excluded witnesses was sufficient for a conviction, the erroneous exclusion of witnesses requires a new trial.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on May 15, 2007 12:56 PM
Posted to Ind. Sup.Ct. Decisions