« Law - More on "Facebook Privacy: A Bewildering Tangle of Options" | Main | Ind. Law - "Indianapolis law firms raising rates again" »

Saturday, May 15, 2010

Ind. Decisions - "Yalanda Parrish’s conviction, sentence upheld"; discussion of judges' independent research

Yesterday's NFP COA opinion in the case of Yalanda Sue Parrish v. State of Indiana (NFP) is the subject of a story dated May 14, 2010, in the Jeffersonville News & Tribune. Matt Thacker reports:

The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the conviction and sentence of road-rage shooter Yalanda Parrish in a 3-0 decision published Friday.

A jury in Clark County Circuit Court convicted Parrish of class B felony aggravated battery in July, and Judge Dan Moore sentenced her to 10 years in prison with the final three years to be served on work release.

Parrish, 41, shot 52-year-old Wesley Mosier once in the chest as he approached her vehicle while stopped at a traffic light at 10th Street and Allison Lane in Jeffersonville. Witnesses gave varying testimonies about whether Parrish was following Mosier too closely or Mosier was driving erratically and cutting off Parrish on his motorcycle.

Mosier claimed he only wanted to ask if he had done something wrong, while Parrish said Mosier tried to attack her and she was acting in self-defense

Parrish’s 15-year-old son was arrested for kicking and hitting Mosier after he was shot and on the ground.

Yalanda Parrish appealed her conviction on the grounds that her request for a mistrial was denied. Moore ruled prosecutors could not mention allegations that Parrish’s son attacked Mosier because that might prejudice the jury.

Mosier mentioned during his testimony that her son pulled his hair and kicked him, and Moore admonished the jury to ignore those statements. The Court of Appeals found that one statement — taking into consideration that 15 witnesses were called — did not have a persuasive effect on the jury.

In arguing the sentence was too long, Yalanda Parrish’s appeal stated that the judge should not have used matters outside the court in sentencing.

The Court of Appeals found that she waived appellate review on that matter because she never objected when Moore said at the sentencing hearing that he went to the scene of the crime and counted the number of stops Yalanda Parrish could have turned off on 10th Street between Sportsman Drive and Allison Lane to avoid the conflict.

“Therefore, although trial court judges are strongly discouraged from undertaking their own investigations and visiting crime scenes, the information that the trial court judge in this case received as a result of his visits had already been presented to the jury, and we find no error,” the Court of Appeals ruled.

Some readers may recall this case, the ILB had a number of entries on it, it was variously referenced as a "stand your ground" or "road rage" case in reports.

Judges' independent research. After reading stories on the sentencing in this case, the ILB posted this Aug. 21, 2009 entry headed "Observations on: Verdict in road-rage shooting trial in Clark County". Additionally, a more general ILB entry from the day before, Aug. 20. 2009, had examined the propriety of judges' independent research -- the latter part of the Aug. 20th entry discussed the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.9(C), which declares that judges "shall not investigate facts in a matter independently, and shall consider only the evidence presented and any facts that may properly be judicially noticed."

Friday's decision in Parrish has a discussion of the Parrish judge's independent research beginning on p. 9 in the section re sentencing, headed "B. Consideration of Matters Outside the Record." From the opinion [ILB emphasis added]:

Parrish first contends that the trial court erred in considering matters outside the record. However, she has waived appellate review of this issue because she failed to object when the trial court made its statements about counting the number of stops to turn off on 10th Avenue between Sportsman Drive and Allison Lane and about visiting the Thornton’s parking lot. See Hulfachor v. State, 813 N.E.2d 1204, 1207 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (holding that failure to object to consideration of evidence outside the record in determining a sentence results in waiver of the issue on appeal). Waiver notwithstanding, we find no error. At trial, the State mentioned that there were fifty different places along 10th Street from Sportsman Avenue to Allison Lane where Parrish could have turned off and gotten away from Mosier if he was harassing her as she claimed. In addition, the jury saw a videotape and pictures of Thornton’s lot. Therefore, although trial court judges are strongly discouraged from undertaking their own investigations and visiting crime scenes, the information that the trial court judge in this case received as a result of his visits had already been presented to the jury, and we find no error.
_____

Prior to that, on p. 7, the opinion quotes from the trial court sentencing record, including:

The Court’s required, I believe, to look beyond the statute and look beyond the arguments of counsel. And so much of this trial involved arguments about who was right and who was wrong that day. . . . Both of these adults on the roadway that day were engaged in conduct that does not reflect mature adults with their vehicles. Between Sportsman Drive and Allison Lane there almost appeared to be a competition on the roadway. . . . I think that one of the lawyers at the closing statements said that there were fifty stops to turn off between Sportsman Drive and Allison Lane. In fact, I counted them myself since the trial and had my staff double check me, and there were forty-eight options before that shooting occurred. Forty-eight places to turn off the road.
. . .
Ms. Parrish, the evidence on her side of the case was there was a child with her. There was a gun under her seat and it was a hand gun and we have learned since trial that she has no firearms training [what] so ever. She’s driving in a car in Clark County in Jeffersonville with a hand gun under her seat. Since the trial I actually have gone twice to the Thornton’s parking lot, got out of my car and stood there and watched the traffic to understand what was going on this day because we saw the video tape at the Thornton’s lot. Two huge driveways to turn into . . . before she chose the option to pull the gun. . . .

Posted by Marcia Oddi on May 15, 2010 10:46 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions