Erik Valdez v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Dec 17 2020, 8:41 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Andrew J. Baldwin Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Baldwin, Perry & Kamish P.C. Attorney General of Indiana
Franklin, Indiana
Benjamin J. Shoptaw
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Erik Valdez, December 17, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-1011
v. Appeal from the Clark Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Vicki L.
Appellee-Plaintiff Carmichael, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
10C04-1601-F3-3
Weissmann, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1011 | December 17, 2020 Page 1 of 5
[1] Erik Valdez claims the trial court should have instructed the jury to view the
evidence against him through the lens of presumed innocence. As the jury
received such direction, albeit not through Valdez’s instruction rejected by the
trial court, we find no error. Accordingly, we affirm Valdez’s convictions.
Facts
[2] Valdez was charged with Battery and Neglect of a Dependent arising from
serious injuries he inflicted on his four-month-old son. At Valdez’s trial, from
which he was absent, Valdez’s counsel requested the trial court instruct the jury:
If the conduct of the accused, Erik Valdez[,] could be interpreted
reasonably in more than one fashion, at least one of which is
innocent, then you should presume his conduct was in fact
innocence (sic).
App. Vol. III pp. 139-40.
[3] The trial court rejected Valdez’s tendered instruction. Instead, the court
instructed the jury:
Under the law of this State, a person charged with a crime is
presumed to be innocent. To overcome the presumption of
innocence, the State must prove the Defendant guilty of each
element of the crime charged, beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Defendant is not required to present any evidence to prove
innocence or to prove or explain anything. You should fit the
evidence to the presumption that the defendant is innocent if you
can do so.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1011 | December 17, 2020 Page 2 of 5
App. Vol. IV p. 67.
[4] The jury found Valdez guilty, and the trial court imposed a nine-year sentence.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Valdez claims he is entitled to a new trial because the trial court chose its own
instruction over his. He relies exclusively on our Supreme Court’s decision in
McCowan v. State, 27 N.E.3d 760 (Ind. 2015), where the Court ruled a criminal
defendant is entitled to the following jury instruction upon his request:
The presumption of innocence continues in favor of the
defendant throughout the trial. You should fit the evidence to the
presumption that the defendant is innocent if you can reasonably
do so.
A trial court has discretion to reject any tendered instruction which offers
different or supplemental language. Id.
[6] Valdez’s proposed instruction differs from the mandatory instruction in
McCowan. Therefore, we must determine whether the trial court abused its
discretion in rejecting Valdez’s version. An abuse of discretion occurs when the
rejected instruction correctly stated the law, was supported by the evidence
presented at trial, and contained directives not covered by other jury
instructions. Id. at 763-764, 766.
[7] Valdez contends his instruction correctly stated the law, was supported by the
evidence, and was not covered by other instructions. We find that last issue
dispositive because the substance of Valdez’s proposed instruction was covered
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1011 | December 17, 2020 Page 3 of 5
by the trial court’s instruction. According to Valdez, none of the instructions
informed the jury how to “treat multiple interpretations of the evidence.”
Appellant’s Brief, p. 11. Valdez is incorrect. The court specifically charged the
jury to “fit the evidence to the presumption that the defendant is innocent if you
can do so.” A jury would not need “to fit the evidence to the presumption of
innocence” unless that evidence were capable of more than one interpretation.
By its very nature, evidence of culpability susceptible to only one interpretation
can support either guilt or innocence—but not both.
[8] Furthermore, the trial court’s presumption of innocence instruction contained
language identical to the McCowan model instruction. The trial court’s
instruction simply contained an additional paragraph, which correctly stated
the law. See McCowan, 27 N.E.3d at 762, 767 (finding jury properly instructed
when the instructions included the additional language found in the trial court’s
instruction in Valdez’s case). We conclude Valdez received what he sought: an
instruction directing the jury to view the evidence through a presumption of
innocence lens.
[9] No instructional error occurred. Even if it had, our decision would be
unchanged because the evidence against Valdez was overwhelming. We
reverse only where the defendant is prejudiced by the improper rejection of a
tendered instruction. Hernandez v. State, 45 N.E.3d 373, 376 (Ind. 2015). The
child’s injuries first became apparent while Valdez cared for the child alone.
Valdez admitted grabbing the infant’s face and causing bruising. Valdez further
admitted shaking the baby. Valdez offered up a medically implausible
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1011 | December 17, 2020 Page 4 of 5
explanation to explain his son’s rib fractures. Although Valdez believed the
child was dying, he did not call an ambulance or take the child to the hospital
for eleven hours after the baby became unresponsive. Valdez even advised the
infant’s mother that they should not take their baby to the hospital due to the
bruising.
[10] We are confident regardless of which instruction the jury received, the result
would have been the same. See Hancock v. State, 585 N.E.2d 1371, 1372-1373
(Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (finding no prejudice from improper jury instruction where
evidence of guilt was overwhelming). Accordingly, we find no error.
[11] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Mathias, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1011 | December 17, 2020 Page 5 of 5