Ingle v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Indiana affirmed John Ingle’s murder and attempted murder convictions but held that the evidence did not support his attempted kidnapping conviction. The court interpreted “hostage” in Indiana’s kidnapping statute to require that the victim be held as security for an act or forbearance by a third party. It also concluded that the State failed to prove either charged aggravating circumstance necessary to support a death sentence.

Holdings

1. The State sufficiently rebutted Ingle's claim of sudden heat, and the evidence permitted the jury to find that the killing was deliberate rather than provoked by legally sufficient sudden heat.
2. Ingle was not entitled to an attempted voluntary-manslaughter instruction because a lawful arrest is not legally adequate provocation for sudden heat.
3. The trial court properly refused to permit the prosecuting attorney to testify and properly denied the motion to disqualify him or appoint a special prosecutor.
4. There was no Brady violation because Ingle knew of the relevant conversation before trial and the record did not show suppression of materially favorable evidence.
5. The term "hostage" in Indiana Code § 35-42-3-2 refers to a person held as security for the performance or forbearance of an act by a third party; holding a person solely to secure a demand directed to that person constitutes criminal confinement, not kidnapping.
6. The evidence was insufficient to sustain Ingle's attempted kidnapping conviction because it showed only an intent to force Debbie to return to him, not an intent to use her as security to obtain an act or forbearance from a third party.
7. The State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the aggravating circumstance of intentional murder while attempting to commit kidnapping.
8. The State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ingle committed the murder by lying in wait.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence supported a voluntary-manslaughter theory based on sudden heat for the murder.
2. Whether Ingle was entitled to an instruction on attempted voluntary manslaughter for shooting Officer Witt.
3. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to disqualify the prosecuting attorney, appoint a special prosecutor, or permit the prosecutor to testify.
4. Whether the State violated Brady v. Maryland by failing to disclose material information concerning the prosecutor's conversation with Ingle's brother.
5. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the attempted kidnapping conviction under Indiana's kidnapping statute.
6. Whether the evidence proved the charged death-penalty aggravating circumstances of murder while attempting kidnapping and murder by lying in wait.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded