Weida v. State
2002 WL 31624606, 2002 Ind. App. LEXIS 1935, 778 N.E.2d 843 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court's refusal to give a defendant's tendered jury instruction on a defense theory constitutes reversible error when the instruction is supported by evidence in the record, is not covered by other instructions, and is conceptually analogous to a recognized state law defense, even if not explicitly recognized by that name under state law.
Facts:
- Curtis Weida told Kristen Gross on multiple occasions about his fantasies of kidnapping, sexually assaulting, and murdering a young boy.
- On June 13, 2000, Weida and Gross drove around searching for a child to abduct.
- They spotted a ten-year-old boy, I.P., and Weida directed Gross to lure him to their car by pretending to ask for directions.
- When I.P. approached the car, Gross shoved him into the backseat, and at Weida's direction, used a plastic band provided by Weida to tie the boy's wrists.
- While driving, Gross expressed a desire to release I.P. and unsuccessfully attempted to burn the band off his wrists.
- Weida stated that if they could not get the boy loose, "there was no option," which Gross interpreted as a threat to kill I.P.
- Weida later stopped at a gas station, borrowed scissors, and cut the band off I.P.'s wrists.
- After threatening I.P. with a gun not to tell anyone, Weida and Gross drove him back to his neighborhood and released him unharmed.
Procedural Posture:
- Curtis Weida was charged with Conspiracy to Commit Murder and Confinement in Howard Circuit Court, the trial court.
- Following a jury trial, Weida was found guilty on both counts.
- At the sentencing hearing, the trial court vacated the Confinement conviction on double jeopardy grounds.
- The trial court sentenced Weida to an executed term of fifty years for the Conspiracy to Commit Murder conviction.
- Weida (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Indiana Court of Appeals, with the State as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by refusing to give a defendant's tendered jury instruction on the defense of withdrawal from a conspiracy when there is evidence in the record to support it, and the defense is conceptually the same as the recognized state law defense of abandonment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mathias, Judge
Yes, the trial court abused its discretion. Although the defense of withdrawal from a conspiracy is not formally recognized in Indiana, it is conceptually the same as the state's recognized defense of abandonment. The court's decision to refuse a tendered jury instruction is reviewed for abuse of discretion based on three factors: 1) whether the instruction correctly states the law, 2) whether evidence supports the instruction, and 3) whether its substance is covered by other instructions. Here, the tendered instruction on withdrawal, though based on federal law, was conceptually sound. There was evidence to support it, as Weida did not murder I.P. but instead set him free. Finally, no other instruction covered the substance of this defense. Given these extraordinary facts, the jury should have been allowed to consider whether Weida had abandoned the conspiracy, and the refusal to give the instruction was a reversible error.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for establishing that a defendant may be entitled to a jury instruction on a defense theory even if it is not explicitly recognized by name under state law, provided it is conceptually equivalent to a recognized defense and supported by the evidence. It prioritizes the substance of a legal defense over its formal label, promoting flexibility and fairness in jury trials. The ruling may encourage defendants to propose instructions based on analogous legal principles from other jurisdictions, potentially broadening the scope of recognized defenses in future cases involving similar circumstances of abandonment or withdrawal.
