Preview:

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: STEVEN KNECHT Vonderheide & Knecht, P.C. Lafayette, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana MAUREEN ANN BARTOLO Special Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
VINCENT L. PUCKETT, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 79A02-0603-CR-183

APPEAL FROM THE TIPPECANOE CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Donald L. Daniel, Judge Cause No. 79C01-0502-MR-1

March 23, 2007 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

BARNES, Judge

Case Summary
Vincent Puckett appeals his conviction for one count of Class A felony voluntary manslaughter. We affirm.

Issue
Puckett argues the trial court abused its discretion when it excluded evidence that the victim had a history of violent behavior, which Puckett claims would have bolstered his argument that the victim was the initial aggressor and that Puckett was therefore justified in killing him in self-defense.

Facts
On January 31, 2005, Puckett visited William Dycus, the victim, at Dycus's apartment in Lafayette. The purpose of Puckett's visit was to purchase marijuana from Dycus for resale to another buyer. During the visit, Puckett and Dycus sat on Dycus's bed and had a short conversation. Puckett asked Dycus if he could spend the night in the apartment because he feared being turned away from the homeless shelter where he had been staying. Dycus declined, and then became agitated and stated that a lot of people at the shelter owed him money. Dycus began waving a gun around, pointed it at Puckett, and stated that he would kill Puckett because Puckett owed him money, too. Puckett stated that Dycus said, "[y]ou f*** with me, I'll kill you." Appellant's App. p. 446. Puckett, who is six feet tall and 350 pounds, then punched Dycus in the face, and Dycus fell sideways onto the bed. Dycus was approximately five feet, six inches tall and weighed approximately 130 pounds. Puckett thought he had knocked Dycus out but

2

jumped on top of him anyway, and the two began to struggle. Puckett successfully knocked the gun away and out of reach. Puckett admitted that he did not have to fight Dycus for the gun due to the size and strength difference between the two men. Puckett then reached for a "big ass folding knife...big blade," and stabbed Dycus "everywhere on the face" and in his head. Appellant's App. pp. 447, 455. Puckett then watched Dycus die. Afterwards, Puckett sat on the bed for a few minutes. He then decided to look around for any of Dycus's personal belongings that he might want to take. Puckett moved Dycus's body in order to look under the bed. He left the apartment with some marijuana, a folding pocket knife, and a jar of change, all of which belonged to Dycus. Puckett went straight from the apartment to a bar where he unsuccessfully attempted to sell the jar of change. Puckett then took a taxicab to a liquor store near a motel in West Lafayette and spent the night at the motel. Police found him the next morning with the marijuana and the folding pocket knife. The State charged Puckett on five separate counts: murder, felony murder, Class A felony robbery while armed resulting in serious bodily injury, Class D felony theft, and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana. Puckett was subsequently charged with being an habitual offender on April 1, 2005. Puckett was convicted by a jury of Class A felony voluntary manslaughter, Class D felony theft, and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana. Puckett waived trial by jury on the habitual offender count, and was found by the court to be an habitual offender. Puckett now appeals his voluntary manslaughter conviction.
3

Analysis
Puckett alleges that the trial court erred when it refused to allow Puckett to introduce evidence of Dycus's violent character. Puckett claims that the evidence would have bolstered his argument that Dycus was the initial aggressor and that Puckett was therefore justified in killing Dycus in self-defense. The standard of review for

admissibility of evidence issues is whether the trial court's decision was an abuse of its discretion. Bell v. State, 820 N.E.2d 1279, 1281 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. The decision whether to admit evidence will not be reversed absent a showing of manifest abuse of a trial court's discretion resulting in the denial of a fair trial. Id. Generally, errors in the admission or exclusion of evidence are to be disregarded as harmless unless they affect the substantial rights of a party. Id. In determining whether an evidentiary ruling affected a party's substantial rights, the court assesses the probable impact of the evidence on the trier of fact. Id. A valid claim of defense of oneself or another person is legal justification for an otherwise criminal act. Ind. Code

Download Vincent L. Puckett v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law