Richard M. Givan

In Tidwell v. State, the defendant was convicted by a jury of murder and conspiracy to commit murder after shooting Matt Lightfield in the head during a dispute over a woman, with assistance from Eddie Dunn, and was also found to be a habitual offender, resulting in a 100-year sentence. On appeal, Tidwell challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the conspiracy conviction, arguing lack of proof that Dunn agreed to the murder, and claimed the trial court erred in denying funds for an investigator and psychiatric expert to examine witness credibility and potential blackout from intoxication. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that under the unilateral theory of conspiracy, Dunn's subjective beliefs were irrelevant and the evidence showed Tidwell's intent and agreement to use the gun to kill Lightfield; it also found no abuse of discretion in denying expert funds because the requests were exploratory rather than necessary for an adequate defense.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the conviction of Nelson Harris for murder, robbery, and confinement arising from the 1991 robbery of a gas station in Indianapolis during which attendant Kurt Kahlo was shot and killed. Harris challenged the prosecutor's rebuttal arguments, the admission of testimony about his prior statements expressing a desire to kill someone, and the sufficiency of the evidence based on accomplice testimony. The court held that the prosecutor's comments were proper responses to defense arguments and were not objected to at trial, that the prior statements were admissible to show motive or intent, and that the accomplice testimony was sufficiently corroborated for the jury to assess credibility. The convictions and consecutive sentences totaling 100 years were affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Rodney Bonham's appeal from the denial of his 1992 petition to file a belated motion to correct errors following his 1980 conviction for the 1975 murder of Nora Boothe. Bonham argued ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to properly object to testimony from a pastor about his confession, a detective about his statements during fingerprinting, and a co-conspirator, as well as errors in jury instructions and failure to address a hearing-impaired juror. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that counsel had objected where appropriate, that the challenged evidence was admissible because no clergy privilege applied and Miranda rights were honored, that res judicata did not bar the co-conspirator's testimony, and that other claims were either waived or lacked merit as the instructions adequately covered the law.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved the validity of an antenuptial agreement signed by Gaylord and Janet Parr before their remarriage following an earlier divorce. The trial court upheld the agreement, which limited the wife's share of the marital estate in the event of dissolution, but the Court of Appeals reversed that decision. The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and affirmed the trial court, holding that there was sufficient evidence of asset disclosure and that the wife had knowledge of the husband's finances and an opportunity to consult her attorney. The Court reasoned that the appellate court had improperly reweighed the evidence presented to the trial court instead of deferring to its findings on issues including disclosure and undue influence.

family lawproperty

The case involved appellant Linda Chiesi, who was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder and murder of her husband, receiving consecutive sentences of 50 and 60 years. She appealed, arguing that double jeopardy barred convictions for both the conspiracy and the completed crime because the charging information and facts showed the murder as the sole overt act, and she also challenged the denial of a new trial based on alleged newly discovered evidence and recantation as well as the sufficiency of the evidence. The court affirmed, distinguishing the case from Buie v. State on the grounds that the evidence showed a lengthy conspiracy with multiple separate overt acts by the appellant, including providing a gun, detailed instructions, and money, before the killing occurred; it further held that the evidence was sufficient and that the new evidence claims did not warrant a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned the convictions of appellant Underwood on multiple felony counts including three robberies, attempted rape, criminal deviate conduct, kidnapping, and habitual offender status, stemming from a February 1993 incident in which he robbed several victims at knifepoint and assaulted one victim. The trial court denied motions to suppress identifications and evidence, found sufficient proof of the crimes, and declined to declare a mistrial after an improper reference to marijuana. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the show-up identification was not impermissibly suggestive, officers had probable cause to arrest based on victim descriptions and flight, the defendant's actions constituted a substantial step toward rape, and any evidentiary errors were harmless or cured.

criminal lawprocedure