Walden v. State, 18S02-0710-CR-458 (Oct 20, 2008) – on transfer
Attorney for Walden: Kelly Bryan
Walden argues the trial court improperly rejected his habitual phase instruction:
Even where the jury finds the facts of the prerequisite prior felony convicitons to be uncontroverted, the jury still has the unquestioned right to refuse to find the Defendant to be a habitual offender at law.
Court notes that in Holden, 788 N.E.2d 1253 (Ind. 2003), “we made clear that Indiana juries do not have a broad, general nullification power in criminal cases.” But, “when a jury is evaluating a defendant’s habitual offender status, the jury is afforded slightly more leeway than Holden authorizes in the guilt phase.” Seay, 698 N.E.2d 732 (Ind. 1998) held the interplay between the habitual statute and the “law and facts” statute gives the jury “latitude in defining the habitual offender status in a way that it does not in defining guilt or innocence.” However, the Court finds that its statement in Seay that art. I ยง19 supported its holding was incorrect.
Because instructions as a whole advised jury that they were the finders of the law and facts and that they “may” — rather than “must” — find the defendant an habitual offender, no error in denying the instruction. Court of Appeals affirmed. Rucker & Dickson dissent.
Full opinion http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/supreme.html
