Witte v. State

Citations: 516 N.E.2d 2; 1987 Ind. LEXIS 1159; 1987 WL 22097Docket: 64S00-8605-CR547

Court: Indiana Supreme Court; December 8, 1987; Indiana; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Hilma Marie Witte was convicted of murder and attempted murder, receiving concurrent 50-year sentences. In her appeal, she raised five issues: limitations on cross-examination of State witnesses, improper jury instructions, refusal of her proposed jury instruction, sentencing concerns, and sufficiency of evidence. Evidence indicated Witte had been in an abusive marriage with Paul Witte, which fueled her desire to kill him, especially due to financial problems and concerns over a divorce settlement. Witte attempted to poison Paul but ultimately pressured her son Eric to shoot him. After Eric killed Paul, he initially claimed it was an accident. The investigation into Paul's death was reopened years later, leading to new statements from Eric and others, contradicting the initial narrative. Witte argued that the trial court improperly restricted her ability to cross-examine key witnesses about their mental health and substance abuse histories, which she contended affected their credibility.

The trial court maintained its order restricting certain matters, deeming them irrelevant, despite defense counsel's attempts to make offers to prove during the trial. These offers referenced the motion in limine but did not specify the evidence that would be introduced. The trial court rejected these offers, resulting in no related questions being posed to witnesses. Although the appellant's efforts to preserve the issue for appeal were somewhat incomplete, they were deemed sufficient because the trial court's order was excessively broad. 

The appellant argued that the restrictions on cross-examination were unjustified, citing relevant case law, including *McIntyre v. State* and *Higginbotham v. State*, which involved reversible errors due to denied cross-examinations that could affect witness credibility. However, in this case, the appellant failed to demonstrate how cross-examining witnesses about their mental and social issues would impact their testimony's credibility. There was no indication that any witnesses were impaired by drugs, alcohol, or mental disabilities during the incidents or while testifying. 

The appellant claimed that the inquiries were necessary to challenge the witnesses' character and credibility, but did not provide evidence that this would influence any specific testimony. The court clarified that character impeachment must be based on community reputation or proof of prior convictions, which the appellant did not supply. Consequently, the trial court acted within its discretion in limiting cross-examination. Additionally, the appellant alleged that the trial court improperly provided additional jury instructions during deliberations. However, there was no supporting evidence in the record for this claim.

Defense counsel Scott L. King submitted an affidavit with the Motion to Correct Error, stating he was trial counsel for the Appellant and present during jury deliberations. He claimed he was not informed that the jury requested reinstruction and later learned through discussions with the trial prosecutor, trial judge, and reporters that certain pattern instructions were submitted to the jury. King asserted that had he known of these instructions, he would have objected due to their inclusion of extraneous materials and irrelevant legal points. The Appellant did not provide specific details about the instructions or evidence of the jury being reinstructed in defense's absence. According to Ind.R.App. P. 7.2(C), the Appellant failed to establish a factual basis for the issue on appeal.

The Appellant argued that the trial court erred in refusing to give her requested instruction on self-defense and defense of others. The court evaluates such refusals by assessing the correctness of the instruction, supporting evidence, and whether the instruction's substance was covered elsewhere. The evidence indicated the victim was shot while asleep at the Appellant's request, and she was not present, justifying the trial court's refusal to instruct on reasonable force.

Additionally, the Appellant contended that the trial court improperly handled the statutory requirements for consecutive sentences. The court enhanced the presumptive sentence from forty to fifty years based on aggravating factors, including the Appellant's criminal record and the nature of the crime involving family members in a murder scheme. Although mitigating circumstances were acknowledged, they were deemed insufficient to outweigh the aggravating factors, which justified the sentence enhancement. The Appellant also argued the trial court did not adequately justify the consecutive nature of the sentences related to prior sentences from LaPorte County.

The court must provide specific and individualized reasons for imposing consecutive sentences. Although both sentence enhancement and consecutive sentences rely on the same statutory aggravating circumstances, they are distinct decisions. The appellate court is unable to determine if the trial court felt compelled to impose consecutive sentences under Ind. Code 35-50-1-2, as the appellant claims this statute does not apply to her due to the timing of the crimes. The record lacks sufficient information to review this contention, leading the appellate court to agree with the appellant that the trial court did not provide reasons for the consecutive sentences. Consequently, the case is remanded for the trial court to articulate its reasons for the consecutive sentences or to strike that provision entirely. Regarding the appellant's claim of insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict, the court reaffirms that it does not reassess witness credibility or reweigh evidence but instead considers only the evidence favorable to the State. The evidence showed the victim was shot while asleep, as part of a plan involving the appellant and her family, including the shooter. The appellate court finds sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict and remands the case for sentencing correction, while affirming the trial court's other decisions.