Opinion ID: 2199579
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Murder Verdict Contrary to Law

Text: The defendant next contends that the State embraced the theory that [the defendant] killed Tammy while acting in sudden heat. Brief of Appellant at 16. As such, the defendant argues that the murder verdict was contrary to law. Id. During closing arguments, the prosecution, in describing the multiple stab wounds and presumed spontaneous manner in which the victim was killed, stated that the murder sounds ... like a crime of passion and accused the defendant of having been out of control and in a rage. Record at 3922-28. The defendant contends that the prosecutor's statements thereby acknowledged the existence of sudden heat, an element of voluntary manslaughter and the ultimate murder conviction was therefore contrary to law because the prosecution did not negate such sudden heat. [I]t has long been a basic tenet of Indiana law that, although the defendant bears the burden of placing his affirmative defense in issue, the prosecution bears the ultimate burden of negating any defense which is sufficiently raised by the defendant. Wolfe v. State, 426 N.E.2d 647, 652 (Ind. 1981). Thus, if there has been some evidence of sudden heat presented at the trial, then the state bears the burden of negating the existence of sudden heat beyond a reasonable doubt and failure to do so reduces what otherwise would be murder to voluntary manslaughter. Id. This court has held that, while the defendant bears no burden with respect to sudden heat, he does bear the burden of placing the issue in question where the state's evidence has not done so. Id. In Wolfe, the State sought a murder conviction and the defendant raised the defense that his actions were the result of sudden heat. Id. at 653. The defendant presented evidence at trial tending to show sudden heat and the trial court instructed the jury that the burden of proof was upon the State to prove the absence of sudden heat beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Wolfe involved very different circumstances than those presented in this case. The only evidence of sudden heat that the defendant argues was presented by either side is the State's references in its opening and closing statements to the fact that this was a crime of passion and that the defendant was in a rage and was out of control. It is well established that statements made by the attorneysin opening statements, closing arguments or otherwiseare not evidence. See, e.g., Fleenor v. State, 622 N.E.2d 140, 144 (Ind.1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 999, 115 S.Ct. 507, 130 L.Ed.2d 415 (1994); Kindred v. State, 524 N.E.2d 279, 291 (Ind.1988); Kalady v. State, 462 N.E.2d 1299, 1308 (Ind.1984). Furthermore, the jurors in this case were specifically instructed and repeatedly reminded as follows: These opening statements are not evidence.... When the evidence is completed, the attorneys will make final statements. What the attorneys say is not evidence. Record at 188 (Judge's Preliminary Instructions). [W]hat the attorneys say during the trial is not evidence. The only evidence you're to consider in this case in determining the facts is what you hear and see from this witness stand. Record at 766 (Judge's Admonitions Prior to Opening Statements). This part of the trial is opening statement and as [the judge] told you opening statement is not evidence. The only thing you can consider in deciding your verdict is what you hear on the witness stand. Record at 757 (State's Opening Statement). We are now ready for final argument. You've heard all the evidence in this case from which to determine the facts. Now the attorneys are going to speak to you in final arguments and then I will give you instructions. Remember what I told you earlier that what the attorneys say is not evidence. Record at 3918 (Judge's Admonitions Prior to Closing Arguments). Finally, the defendant maintained throughout his trial that he simply had not committed the acts charged. He did not claim that he had killed the victim under sudden heat. The defendant proposed no instructions relating to voluntary manslaughter. He proposed only an instruction relating to murder. The Court gave no instruction as to voluntary manslaughter. Because no issue of sudden heat was presented by the trial evidence, the State was not required to negate the existence of sudden heat and the murder verdicts returned were not contrary to law.