Preview:

FOR PUBLICATION
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: THOMAS W. VANES Office of the Public Defender Crown Point, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana BRIAN REITZ Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

FILED
Jun 18 2012, 9:46 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
SHEPELL ORR, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CLERK

No. 45A03-1107-CR-308

APPEAL FROM THE LAKE SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Salvador Vasquez, Judge Cause No. 45G01-1001-MR-1

June 18, 2012

OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION

ROBB, Chief Judge

Case Summary and Issue Following a jury trial, Shepell Orr appeals his two convictions of murder, which are felonies. He raises a single issue, which we restate as whether the trial court committed reversible error in allowing the State to attempt to impeach a witness with extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement. Concluding the trial court did not reversibly err, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History On December 30, 2009, as Orr was leaving an apartment building of a friend and while he was walking past Tyray Tolbert, LaTonya Burnette, Steven Williams, and Joshua Haywood, a verbal dispute arose between Williams and Orr. Orr retrieved a gun from his truck and opened fire. Tolbert and Burnette ran, and Williams and Haywood were soon found dead with eleven total gunshot wounds. The State charged Orr with two counts of murder. At the jury trial, Burnette testified that she did not see a gun or altercation that night and only heard gunshots. Apparently this conflicted with what Burnette told others on the night of the incident. Following a hearing outside the presence of the jury, the State called Michelle Jones to testify regarding what Burnette told Jones on the night of the incident. In addition, one of Orr's fellow inmates while Orr awaited trial testified that Orr admitted to him that he committed the murders. The jury found Orr guilty as charged and, following a hearing, the trial court entered a judgment of conviction as to both counts of murder and sentenced Orr to two consecutive terms of fifty-five years, for a total of one hundred and ten years. Orr now appeals his convictions. Additional facts will be supplied as appropriate.

2

Discussion and Decision I. Standard of Review A trial court has "inherent discretionary power" in determining the admission of evidence, and we review its decisions for an abuse of discretion. Vasquez v. State, 868 N.E.2d 473, 476 (Ind. 2007) (quotation omitted). When a defendant fails to make a contemporaneous objection to the admission of evidence at trial, however, any error is generally waived for purposes of appeal. Jackson v. State, 735 N.E.2d 1146, 1152 (Ind. 2000). The purpose of requiring a contemporaneous objection is to afford the trial court an opportunity to make a final ruling on the matter in the context which the evidence is introduced. Id. This is why, for example, pointing to a motion to suppress, a hearing thereon, or other similar hearing, does not satisfy this requirement. See id. Similarly, the rule allows trial court judges to consider the issues in light of any fresh developments

Download Shepell Orr v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law