Court Opinion

ID: 9738387
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:51:44.811208+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:05.713299
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
concurring in result.
Appellant did not raise and preserve for appeal the issue of the allegedly erroneous jury instructions. This procedural default ordinarily renders appellate review unavailable. Ind.Crim.Rule 8(B); Thomas v. State, 264 Ind. 581, 348 N.E.2d 4, 7 (1976). Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 113 S.Ct. 2078, 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993), holds that a constitutionally defective reasonable doubt instruction is not subject to harmless error analysis. This holding does not obviate the requirement for timely and appropriate litigation of the issue of whether the instruction was actually defective. In this case, the trial court was not made aware of the potential error and, since the record does not reveal a blatant violation of basic and elementary principles, Smith v. State, 459 N.E.2d 355 (Ind.1984), consideration of the potential error is not now available, and I join in affirming the conviction and sentence.
In addition, I do not share the majority's perception of deep problems within this area, nor the belief that the Federal Judicial Center, Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions 17-18 are the appropriate remedy. Specifically, I do not believe that "firmly convinced" equates to "beyond a reasonable doubt." Both objectively and subjectively, "firmly *905convinced" seems more similar to "clear and convincing" than to "beyond a reasonable doubt." I find the Indiana Pattern Jury Instruction, Op. at 901, more than adequate.
SHEPARD, C.J., concurs.