James Francisco Payne v. State of Indiana ( 2024 )

FILED
Nov 13 2024, 9:14 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
IN THE
Court of Appeals of Indiana
James Francisco Payne,
Appellant-Defendant
v.
State of Indiana,
Appellee-Plaintiff
November 13, 2024
Court of Appeals Case No.
23A-CR-2325
Appeal from the Vanderburgh Superior Court
The Honorable Robert J. Pigman, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
82D03-2205-F5-2862
82D03-2109-F6-4879
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 1 of 40
Opinion by Judge Vaidik
Judge Kenworthy concurs.
Judge Felix dissents with separate opinion.
Vaidik, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] A jury found James Francisco Payne guilty of Level 5 felony battery with a
deadly weapon. At trial, the judge, the deputy prosecutors, and Payne’s
attorney were unaware that two psychologists had recently found Payne
incompetent to stand trial in two new cases filed while he was in jail for this
case. Upon learning this information, Payne’s attorney moved to set aside the
verdict. The court stayed consideration of the motion while Payne received
competency-restoration services at a state hospital. When Payne returned, the
court held a hearing and then denied the motion, concluding that Payne was
competent at the time of trial. Payne appeals, and we reverse. Given Payne’s
well-documented history of mental illness, the incompetency findings shortly
before trial, and Payne’s bizarre statements and conduct before, during, and
after trial, the court should have found that he had been incompetent at trial
and set aside the verdict.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In 2022, the State charged Payne with several counts of felony battery, alleging
that he walked into a gas station in Evansville and beat the clerk, Ryan
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 2 of 40
Gangwer, over the head with a wrench for no apparent reason. The case was
assigned to a court that had presided over many other cases against Payne from
2019 to 2021. Because the court’s exposure to Payne’s serious mental illness in
the prior cases is relevant to this appeal, we start by summarizing those cases.
I. Payne’s prior cases with the trial court1
[3] Between June and December of 2019, the State filed five misdemeanor cases
against Payne. See Cause Nos. 82D03-1906-CM-4338, 82D03-1907-CM-4589,
82D03-1911-CM-8123, 82D03-1912-CM-8679, and 82D03-1912-CM-8808. In
one of the cases (CM-4338), the State alleged that Payne went to a gas station
he had been banned from, followed a woman through the parking lot, and gave
her a bear hug. He was referred to Mental Health Court in two of the cases but
failed to participate. In December 2019, the State moved for an evaluation of
whether Payne was competent to stand trial, citing reports from the Evansville
Police Department Homeless Outreach Program detailing multiple instances of
strange and dangerous behavior. The trial court granted the State’s motion and
ordered psychologists Donna Culley and David Cerling to evaluate Payne.
Both found Payne to be competent, and the court agreed. In February 2020,
Payne entered into a plea agreement that resolved all five cases and required
1
The trial court took judicial notice of its prior cases with Payne, see Tr. Vol. II p. 25, but little information
from those cases is included in the record on appeal. We obtained most of the details that follow from the
Odyssey case-management system.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 3 of 40
him to get a mental-health evaluation and comply with treatment
recommendations.
[4] In April and July of 2020, the State filed two felony cases against Payne. See
Cause Nos. 82D03-2004-F6-2166 and 82D03-2007-F6-3982. In the April case
(F6-2166), the State alleged that Payne had approached some kids playing
outside an apartment complex, chased a young girl, punched a young boy, and
fought with police. In July 2020, the trial court found Payne incompetent to
represent himself and again ordered Dr. Culley and Dr. Cerling to evaluate
whether he was competent to stand trial. This time, both concluded he was not.
Dr. Culley noted “obsessive characteristics as well as bizarre thought content
related to artificial intelligence and being monitored” and offered a diagnosis of
“Delusional Disorder, Mixed type (persecutory and grandiose), with bizarre
content.” Dr. Cerling noted “significant psychological impairment including
emotional dysregulation and delusional ideation,” “unrealistic, indeed
grandiose perceptions of his ability to defend himself in these legal
proceedings,” and “no toleration for evidence contrary to his singular point of
view.” A magistrate entered a formal incompetency finding, and in January
2021 the court sent Payne to Logansport State Hospital for restoration services.
Payne was found to be restored in March 2021 and entered into a plea
agreement in April 2021.
[5] In September 2021, the State charged Payne with Level 6 felony possession of
methamphetamine and Class B misdemeanor obstructing traffic after he was
found lying in the middle of the street. See Cause No. 82D03-2109-F6-4879.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 4 of 40
Payne pled guilty to the felony in December 2021, and the trial court ordered a
suspended sentence and probation. The plea agreement required Payne to get a
mental-health evaluation and comply with any recommended treatment. Later
in December and again in March 2022, the State filed petitions to revoke
probation alleging that Payne wasn’t complying with the mental-health
requirements.
II. This case, the Misdemeanor Cases, and the motion to set
aside the verdict
[6] In May 2022, while Payne was on probation in F6-4879, the State filed the
charges in this case: Level 5 felony battery with a deadly weapon, Level 5
felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury, and Level 6 felony battery
resulting in moderate bodily injury. The State also alleged that Payne is a
habitual offender based on prior felony convictions. Payne was in jail
throughout the proceedings.
[7] At the initial hearing before a magistrate on May 25, Payne had this to say
when asked if he understood the charges and potential penalties:
Um. Not guilty. I do understand um, um, I think I understand
what you just said but um, that, um, there is lies (inaudible)
demonstrated that Christians are um, undergoing terrorism per
nano technology program 18 United States Code Section 7501which is impermissible um. We Christians are under terrorism
and um, is considered a weapon of mass destruction according to
Indiana Code 35 – Section 35-31.5-2-3. Before a weapon of mass
destruction used for terrorism. March along and standing right
now, um, um, Christians are being terrorized as we have life
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 5 of 40
emersed demonstrating that, that we Christians are being
terrorized through nano technology.
Tr. Vol. II pp. 5-6. He also claimed that the “Indiana Supreme Court is a
military court.” Id. at 6. Payne said he planned to represent himself, an issue the
magistrate took under advisement.
[8] A week later, the magistrate found that Payne wasn’t competent to represent
himself and appointed an attorney to represent him. On June 8, the trial court
held a hearing where Payne reiterated his desire to represent himself. Payne was
interrupting, “ranting,” and “rambling” throughout the hearing. Id. at 22-27.
The court confirmed the magistrate’s decision about self-representation,
explaining:
The Court is not going to allow you to represent yourself. The
Court will take judicial notice of its own docket and in numerous
other cases that I have dealt with you including the prior
psychological evaluations that were done. You are not competent
to represent yourself. . . . Show the Court will deny the
Defendant’s request to represent himself. . . . Finds that he is not
competent to do so based on his long history of mental illness
and other considerations including his lack of, of any formal
training. The certain result of him representing himself would be
that he would be convicted. He’s not capable of providing
circumstances that would establish anything close to a fair trial
for his claims. I don’t know whether you, what your defense is.
Apparently, you’re claiming you didn’t do this, that’s fine. You
have a defense to these charges, your Counsel will aid you in
presenting that defense but that’s not something you can do.
Id. at 25-26.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 6 of 40
[9] In late June, Payne sent an incoherent letter to the court. The letter referenced
body-cam footage from the night of his arrest but mostly consisted of passages
like this:
AN ENTIRE PERJURIED CIVIL COURT. AS SPY
WIRETAB OPT RECORD MACHINE SEEKER
MONOGRAM SYMBOL SCRAPPLER SCRAMBLER
TERRORISM STRATEGY SO TO ADD ON TO THE
FRIVOLOUS COUNT THAT I OBTAIN IN RECORD
FORM. A CRIMINAL JURY BOX MAINTAINS 13, YET,
SEATS 12 JURORS; A CIVIL JURY BOX MAINTAINS 7
PROSPECT POTENTIAL JURORS; YET, RECORD SEATS 6
JURORS. TIRRE (YOU ARE NOT AT ALL ABSENT THE
RULES.) ERR HAS NO REPEED (NO ONE CAN STOP MY
APPROACH.)
Appellant’s App. Vol. IV p. 36.
[10] On September 16, the trial court held a hearing about Payne’s refusal to submit
to DNA testing and fingerprinting. Payne refused to attend. The court asked
Payne’s attorney if Payne appeared to understand the charges against him.
Payne’s attorney said she did “not believe that he is incompetent under the legal
standard of incompetency. He understands that I’m his lawyer. He clearly
understands that you’re the Judge. He understands the prosecutor’s role.” Supp.
Tr. p. 9. The court then noted,
I don’t think, cause I’ve dealt with James a lot, I don’t, I haven’t
seen anything in this particular case or the case that preceded this
really, that would give me cause to believe that he does not meet
the standard of competency as set out in the Indiana Statute. . . .
He tends to focus on things that he feels are most relevant or
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 7 of 40
important and to the exclusion of just about everything else, and
so that’s the way it has to be or he’s not going to participate and
that’s, that’s not to me, incompetency.
Id. at 10.
[11] In September and October, the State filed two misdemeanor cases against
Payne based on alleged misconduct at the jail (“the Misdemeanor Cases”). See
Cause Nos. 82D07-2209-CM-5325 and 82D05-2210-CM-6002. The cases
weren’t assigned to this trial court. Payne refused to appear for several hearings,
no attorney entered an appearance for him, and no attorney was appointed to
represent him. A magistrate presided over a joint hearing in the cases on
October 21. Payne appeared in person, and the magistrate determined that his
competency to stand trial needed to be evaluated. She appointed Dr. Culley and
Dr. Kevin Hurley to do so. She did not appoint an attorney for Payne, so he
remained unrepresented in those cases.
[12] Five days later, on October 26, the trial court held a progress hearing in this
case. Payne was present with his attorney, but there was no mention of the fact
that a competency evaluation had been ordered in the Misdemeanor Cases.
Payne noted that Gangwer’s DNA wasn’t found on the wrench and seemed to
argue that, for this reason, Payne was not required to provide a DNA sample
and Gangwer was barred from appearing at trial:
[The law] doesn’t give me, it doesn’t require me to [provide a
DNA sample] when, when, when I have documentations at the
last highest ranking of technology concerning DNA when it says
that Ryan Gangwer is now excluded though I have something
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 8 of 40
that would show as if he were, radar design technology in
Popular Science it shows that, that, that there is something . . . .
Tr. Vol. II pp. 30-31. The court eventually told Payne, “You’ve been accused of
a lot of things, Mr. Payne, but now you’re not making sense.” Id. at 33. They
then had the following exchange regarding Payne’s failure to provide a DNA
sample:
THE COURT: Mr. Payne, do you understand you’re in
contempt of this Court for failing –
THE DEFENDANT: I am not. I object.
THE COURT: You do not believe –
THE DEFENDANT: I’m the universal opperhouse (sic) of the
reserve room throne and you know that today.
THE COURT: When the Court orders you to do something you
have to do that.
THE DEFENDANT: I object. The king of the world objects.
THE COURT: I don’t care whether you object. I’ve overruled
your objection. I’ve overruled your Counsel’s objection.
THE DEFENDANT: And your (inaudible) machine, I overrule,
and I, and I object to it.
…
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 9 of 40
THE COURT: You do not have the option of deciding on your
own –
THE DEFENDANT: Yes I do. Yes I do.
THE COURT: Does the Government have –
THE DEFENDANT: I win.
THE COURT: Does the Government have the option on their
own to decide which orders they’re going to obey from this
Court?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes they – I do.
THE COURT: Does the Government have that same right?
THE DEFENDANT: This, this, this, this maygoner (sic) sit –
that’s, he’s the accusator (sic). The accusator (sic) is a victim.
How can the victim, how can he be a victim and also a
Prosecutor? If he’s an accusate (sic), he’s a prosecuting accusator
(sic). A prosecuting accusator (sic) is a victim because if he’s
making accusations . . . of immaterial and he’s not an immaterial
witness.
THE COURT: Mr. Payne, if I told the Government and the
Sheriff they had to release you from the jail would they be
entitled to say I’m not releasing Mr. Payne because we don’t feel
that’s the right –
THE DEFENDANT: They would have to.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 10 of 40
THE COURT: Well then what – in the same sense you have to
obey an order I give you.
THE DEFENDANT: How can I obey it when you are going
against your own rights? I mean you’re going against your own
law. If you understand that this man is excluded then he cannot
fight. He – if he cannot stand trial if he’s excluded. He’s removed
from – he, he is as to say he’s a, a washed (sic), he’s a motion of
wash (sic).
THE COURT: Mr. Payne, you will not have a trial in this cause
until you obey the Court’s ruling.
THE DEFENDANT: You can’t – I, I, I, I can’t obey the Order
because I am not a yet a [sic] conviction settlement. A conviction
settlement is only when I become a contempt if, if something
happens after it. I cannot be – this cannot be considered even a
contempt situation because I have to be a – even – here’s what
I’m saying. As I am a pretrial conference specimen I can never be
held in contempt or on a contempt of procedures. First of all, I
have not done anything wrong. I have not even been found guilty
in this case. This right here acquits me so I can, I can never be
held as a, as a pretrial uh, uh, as a uh, uh, uh conviction
settlement.
Id. at 34-36.
[13] After the trial court told Payne he was in contempt, Payne said, “You’re a
universal terrorist . . . and you will be executed.” Id. at 37. The court told Payne
he had to obey the order, and Payne responded: “I won’t because this, this, this
maygonar (sic) solictris (sic) is, is, is not of use. It’s not something – no one is
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 11 of 40
supposed to be in this place, right now. No one.” Id. When the conversation
turned to the trial date, Payne said:
Whose going to, whose going to be the victim because that’s not
a witness seat, that’s a victim’s seat? Whose going to be the
victim? There’s no such, there’s no such, there’s no such thing as
a witness. A wit, a witness is an instigator. If I have a body
camera and go and ask questions . . . did you see this, did you see
that that’s an instigator that would, that can say anything. I
(inaudible) for that, for that so called witness.
Id. at 38. Payne later said “I’m not in Nebraska” and “I’m of this bailiwick.” Id.
at 39. When the court said the hearing was over, Payne said, “You’re done
forever terrorist. My family is here to execute you.” Id. at 42. After the hearing,
Payne fought with sheriff’s deputies in the hallway outside the courtroom.
[14] In the Misdemeanor Cases, Payne met with Dr. Hurley on November 2 and Dr.
Culley on November 15. Dr. Culley filed her report on November 21, finding
Payne was not competent to stand trial. She noted, in part:
[Payne] exhibited loose and tangential thought processes that
were not logical or lineal in nature. He would respond to
questions with excessive verbiage which was often disorganized.
Thought content was positive for bizarre delusional thoughts that
were grandiose and persecutory in nature. Specifically, Mr.
Payne described being monitored with “nanotechnology” which
he described as “Due to the scientific terrorist. NASA has
military and nanotechnology which is out to destroy all
Christians and I’m the King of all providences of the Universe.”
He stated “I’m disturbed that I’m not out yet; I am under
extreme terrorism; Christians are under attack by
nanotechnology and eye recorder data; someone is trying to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 12 of 40
make me a sex offender by radar, taser based router nine
recordings; I was attacked by [an] imposter from Nebraska.” He
became tangential during various points in the interview and
discussed sex offenders attacking his children and being released
from prison. He frequently described himself as the “Universal
Opera House King of the Universe.”
…
Mr. Payne did not demonstrate an ability to share specific details
and information with this examiner related to his current
charges. When asked how he hope[d] his case would turn out he
stated, “It has no standing; I’m covered by acquittal rank; these
are over thrown.” When asked how he thought the case would
most likely turn out he stated, “I’m the Universal King; they have
no power over court; I’m shutting them down.”
…
Clinical impressions were based on this evaluation, two prior
forensic interviews, and documents provided by the court.
During this evaluation, Mr. Payne presented with grandiose and
persecutory ideation consistent with previous evaluations
completed in 2020. He has a pseudointellectual presentation,
which is challenged by inaccuracies and bizarre thought content.
The diagnosis being offered is Delusional Disorder, Persecutory
Type and Grandiose Type, with Bizarre Content.
With respect to competency, it is the opinion of this examiner
that Mr. Payne does not presently have the capacity to
demonstrate a factual understanding of most legal concepts.
Likewise, he does not currently have a rational ability to
effectively communicate with an attorney or assist in his
defense. With comprehensive psychiatric assessment, medication
stabilization, and competency education it is likely that Mr.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 13 of 40
Payne could be restored to competency. He does not have any
intellectual barrier to competency, and he has experience with
the legal system which may aid in his restoration.
Appellant’s App. Vol. III pp. 13-16 (emphasis added).
[15] The same day Dr. Culley filed her report in the Misdemeanor Cases, the trial
court in this case, still unaware of those competency proceedings, set the jury
trial for January 9, 2023.
[16] Three weeks before that date, on December 16, Dr. Hurley filed his report in
the Misdemeanor Cases. He also found Payne was not competent to stand trial,
and his observations were largely consistent with Dr. Culley’s. He noted, in
part:
At my recent interview with the defendant on 11/2/2022, the
defendant presented as cooperative and willing to answer my
questions, but preoccupied with religiously oriented delusional
thought content. He also engaged in speech that was mostly
disorganized, not germane to the question at hand, and which
made very little sense. The defendant was unable to provide
reliable/accurate responses to basically any of my questions, but
he did appear to have some understanding that he had been
arrested for battery.
Overall, the defendant presented as acutely psychotic at my
interview and unable to communicate rationally. He appears to
suffer from a schizophrenia spectrum disorder which currently
interferes with his basic competency to stand trial. He does not
appear capable of working with his attorney or able to
rationally consider his legal options at this time.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 14 of 40
Id. at 9 (emphasis added).
[17] The jury trial in this case proceeded as scheduled on January 9, with the court,
the deputy prosecutors, and Payne’s attorney all apparently unaware that two
psychologists had recently found Payne incompetent in the Misdemeanor Cases
and that a competency hearing was set for January 26. Throughout trial, Payne
repeatedly said “I object,” including when his own attorney was speaking.
While the State was questioning a police officer about security video from the
gas station, Payne stated, “James never molested these kids. James never
molested these kids. You heard what he said so quit acting stupid.” Tr. Vol. III
p. 53.
[18] During discussions about whether Payne would testify, Payne was asked about
the security video and responded, “That will, that will be the one, that will be
the one with the – where you all – where they created the, they created the
video of the radar core design and then they enhanced it with a, a copiscience
(sic) camcorder. That one. That one.” Id. at 107. When Payne was told that
evidence of prior batteries might be admitted, he stated, “No, no. No, no. Any
false batteries, any – cannot come up because that, that would be a um, um,
universal declaration of human being rights, a prejudgment against my – Article
11.” Id. at 110. Payne’s attorney advised him not to testify, but he insisted. He
also insisted on wearing his jail attire while testifying. Just before he took the
stand, he stated:
I know there might be some terrorism audio rack, rack of
recordings in here and bass coms and um, trens (sic), double
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 15 of 40
boxes and um, um, um, enter – what is it? Rubik’s cube boxes
and, and, and out record out machines and, and, and voice
(inaudible) and all that s*** but it shouldn’t be. We understand
that. It’s a terrorism against my name and all that.
Id. at 114. He added, “I the royal king, universal opperhouse (sic) (inaudible) is
entering the victim box showing that how I’m a victim since the State was not
able to prove his case.” Id. at 115.
[19] When asked to state his name for the record, Payne said, “My title is king,
universal opperhouse (sic) (inaudible). I am King James Francisco Payne, a
victim.” Id. at 116. Payne began his testimony by addressing the fact that
Gangwer’s DNA wasn’t found on the wrench:
As a foundation entry of initial argument and fictitious case
introductory was laid before you, royal jury, Monday, January
09, 20 and 23, yesterday, by the Prosecutor I would like to have
his name but I don’t know so I was trying to respect him for the
Court. Sorry. By the prosecuting accusator (sic). He very plainly,
in part, captioned addressed by word performance that staged
alleged victim settlement determination case file contract, Mr.
Ryan Gangwer, was in fact, not a victim. Ultimately was not
victimized per the accu, accusator’s (sic) clear word direction,
directory and sure clear understanding of the DNA saliva status
collected from Mr. Ryan Gangwer never meeting the
qualifications nor certification of the call of potential regim
colous (sic) duty data recognition attachment to become or even
being of a victimized awareness radar colous (sic) DNA regimen
attender.
Id. at 117-18. Regarding photos of Gangwer’s head injury, Payne testified:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 16 of 40
If you’ll look at it closely, closely – the things we have to do to
prove our point. Uh. Look at it closely with uh, with, with, with
clear eye content please and, and, and please register this in your
aware commentor. You’ll see that head frame cranium fits ogle
perimeter perfect. I said the head frame cranium fits over, oval
perimeter perfect meaning that if this person got hit in the head
with a two-pound wrench, three-quarter, that can tear up metal,
oh man. . . . So – and if you’ll look at this, I said that no skull
brain range is out of place, okay. Hair tamed stylist goo. Strains
are not a piot incision. Dishevelment nor trained hairdo moved
out of the body of its train of style. The open face oval cranium
unveiled frees me from false blame.
Id. at 119-21.
[20] The rest of Payne’s testimony included many more nonsensical statements.
Among other things, he mentioned:
• “the victim settlement in the case”
• “the universal Declaration of Human Rights Act, Article 11”
• being “locked up into that concentration storm camp” that “executes
people in its two hundred range (inaudible) room”
• being “sentenced to die”
• other people being able to see through his eyes
• “terrorism against us Christians”
• his “in-house name Jim from Kentucky”
• that “Jim’s definitely not a f*g”
• him being “the injunction that shall shut down all meganar sorretitus
(sic) all over the planet because this is ridiculous”
• the court being a “military court”
• “a plant drop agency or audio recordings, racket recorders, base coms
and whatnot of trying to frame me”
• “clamps” that “clip to the heart” and “read the heart and simutones (sic)
give off um, the false light visuals and stuff like that and whatnot and
they send it to your brain”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 17 of 40
• “science medical technicians liking to try to lazer [sic] deterrents to my
CBO cortex (inaudible) department to try to stand that down”
• a “death certificate record, inmate record reserve, death welfare seal”
• that “I want to die” and “I’m supposed to die by this”
• “officer uncertainty of power of suggestion, suggestiveness, procedural
possible discriminatorial (sic) guesswork identity”
• that “no essential court may branch assemble record operation”
• that a “central office actually released a branched operation” and has
“canines”
• that Gangwer had “no head frame cranial bits, oval perimeter perfectly
and there’s no card grains”
• that the security video was “created” using “radar core design,”
including “by enhancement of Popular Science”
Id. at 122, 123, 125, 127, 132, 135, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 146, 148, 156, 157.
[21] Payne said this about DNA evidence:
DNA ocolous regim (sic), a DNA colous regim (sic) is a, a, a, is a
– of the DNA data base that, that um, that is pricked from all
infant’s heels during I think their pregnancy of women’s
(inaudible) spittul under um, um, under the caption, title,
heading of the internet as I got the information the other day of
one of my friends’ royal sons helped me in the, in the
concentration storm camp here in Vanderburgh where I’m locked
up at illegally. Um. He looked up, um, under um, Deaconess
Women’s Hospital pregnancy and pregnancy source. Looked up
under um, that, that babies because I was looking up, I was
looking up for um, DNA of ocolous regim (sic) which reads that
infants coming out of the womb when they get they, you know
they get their shots and stuff like that, end up getting their shots
from the heels and they – from their heels and they take that and
they put that in a – for paternity trying to find the father, you
know what I’m saying. They also take that discovery and, and,
and relinquish it to um, um, universal government order for the
protection of – just in case someone grows up to be a terrorist or
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 18 of 40
– and for population control. So um, it’s, it’s a, it’s a wide circle –
circulating um, um, um, universal protection of universal safety
and also population control for the safety of and the awareness of
everyone in each region. There is 195 countries. There is 8500
providences which is states and there is 45,000 uh, citadels which
are cities in which I’m king over but as um, as we understand this
um, and in this um, DNA regim colous (sic) the record cannot
read in, in, in this format that the DNA profile was interpreted as
originated from a single unknown male.
Id. at 136-37.
[22] The jury found Payne guilty on all three counts of battery. During the
subsequent habitual-offender phase, Payne was present at first but eventually
was removed from the courtroom due to “aggressive, threatening behavior.” Id.
at 190. The jury found Payne to be a habitual offender. The court set sentencing
for February 8 and ordered the preparation of a presentence investigation
report.
[23] The probation department filed that report on January 26. It described an
unsuccessful attempt to interview Payne:
The Court should note that the Defendant seemed detached from
reality during the attempt at the pre-sentence interview. He spent
5 minutes refusing to answer any questions as he searched
through a very large packet of legal paperwork that was covered
in small writings the Defendant had made on them. As I
explained to him that I was there to conduct his pre-sentence
interview due to him being found guilty of Felony offenses, he
stated “there is no such thing as a criminal court, all court is
civil”. Mr. Payne also stated “they began another trial after the
last trial with the same jury” and implied that time he was found
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 19 of 40
not guilty. He was argumentative and disruptive as I attempted to
ask him questions, and he ultimately did not answer any
questions. After several attempts to get him to participate in the
interview, I stated that I would ask him once more, “Have you
ever been arrested outside of Vanderburgh County?”, to which he
replied “Did you just say something stupid? Did you say my
family was in room 202 being raped?”. At that point I wished the
Defendant a good day and left the interview room.
Appellant’s App. Vol. IV p. 162. The report also noted that the competency
hearing in the Misdemeanor Cases was set for that day. Payne refused to appear
for that hearing, and it was reset for February 3.
[24] Payne also refused to appear for the competency hearing on February 3. Later
that day, his attorney in this case moved to set aside the verdict, having finally
learned about Dr. Culley’s and Dr. Hurley’s incompetency findings. The trial
court tried several times over the next month to hold a hearing on the motion,
but Payne refused to appear. At the same time, Payne continued refusing to
appear for the competency hearing in the Misdemeanor Cases. On March 14,
Payne again refused to appear in the Misdemeanor Cases, and a magistrate
declared him to be incompetent and ordered him to the Division of Mental
Health and Addiction for restoration services.
[25] On March 16, before Payne was sent away for restoration services, the trial
court in this case again attempted to hold a hearing on the motion to set aside
the verdict. Payne refused to be transported from the jail, but the court was able
to get him on a video call. He insisted that the motion had already been
granted, stating:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 20 of 40
I can’t go to a side court because when you motion to acquit
something, set aside a verdict, that means completely, totally,
ultimately remove the case (inaudible) entirely. That means, that
means because of a lack of standard of proof while Ryan
Gangwer is excluded from the case ultimately, I can’t be
(inaudible). It makes no sense. Professionalism. Um. What it
means is when the Court set aside the verdict because of lack of
standard of proof it then the case is ultimately acquitted.
(Inaudible). You are acquitted. (Inaudible) you are acquitted.
(Inaudible).
Tr. Vol. III p. 205. The connection was then lost, and the court continued the
hearing to the next day.
[26] When the hearing resumed, Payne appeared virtually from his jail cell. He was
“yelling inaudibly” and belligerent, repeatedly stating “Stop using my
window,” “You’re spying on me,” “Stop stalking me,” “Stop terrorizing me,”
“I’m naked,” “Stand down,” “Stop being a pervert,” and “Get away from my
door.” Id. at 210-13. The trial court eventually ended the hearing and ruled that
the proceedings would be stayed until Payne regained competency.
[27] Payne was transported to Logansport State Hospital in early April of 2023. The
hospital declared him competent after two months. The trial court then held a
hearing on the motion to set aside the verdict. The court denied the motion,
explaining:
Throughout the proceedings the Defendant appeared numerous
times. Mr. Payne has been in my Court on numerous occasions.
I’ve had a chance to see him, talk with him. Occasionally,
exchange pleasantries as we did this morning or this afternoon
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 21 of 40
and I saw no evidence that he was – lacked the competence to
stand trial. There was never any concern in [] that regard brought
to the Court’s attention by either side. The finding in another
case is what it is. I obviously can’t change that.
…
[T]he finding in that other case, it is not something I can change
or – but in my observations of you during that time, Mr. Payne,
you’re not incapable of assisting in your defense. You clearly
understand how the legal system works. You testified in your
own behalf. I thought your testimony, truthfully, was pretty
effective. You, you answered questions and you defended your
position and you understood what was important and what
wasn’t important and I’m going to deny the motion.
Id. at 218.
[28] The sentencing hearing was held a week later. To avoid double jeopardy, the
trial court entered judgment of conviction on only one of the three battery
counts, Level 5 felony battery with a deadly weapon. The court sentenced
Payne to ten years in the Department of Correction—five years plus a habitual-
offender enhancement of five years. The court also revoked Payne’s probation
in F6-4879 and sentenced him to time already served. The State dismissed the
Misdemeanor Cases.
[29] Payne now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 22 of 40
Discussion and Decision
[30] Payne contends the trial court erred by finding that he was competent to stand
trial and denying his motion to set aside the verdict. To be competent to stand
trial, the defendant must have “the ability to understand the proceedings and
assist in the preparation of the defendant’s defense.” Ind. Code § 35-36-3-1. In
other words, the defendant must possess “the ability to consult rationally with
counsel and factually comprehend the proceedings against him or her.”
McManus v. State, 814 N.E.2d 253, 260 (Ind. 2004). “The trial and conviction of
one without adequate competence is a denial of federal due process and a
denial of a state statutory right as well.” Id. A determination of competency to
stand trial is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard, reversed only if it is
“unsupported by the facts and circumstances before the court and the
reasonable conclusions that can be drawn therefrom.” Id. at 261.
[31] Having closely reviewed the entire record, we are compelled to hold that the
motion to set aside the verdict should have been granted. By the time the trial
court ruled on the motion, the evidence that Payne was incompetent at the time
of trial was overwhelming. The evidence can be divided into five groups: (1)
Payne’s previous cases before the trial court; (2) Payne’s statements and
conduct before trial; (3) the competency proceedings in the Misdemeanor
Cases; (4) Payne’s statements and testimony at trial; and (5) Payne’s statements
and conduct after trial.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 23 of 40
[32] While Payne’s previous cases with the trial court are the least relevant evidence
of his mental state at the time of this trial, they did set a baseline: the court was
well aware that Payne had a history of serious mental illness. Three years
before the trial in this case, the court ordered a competency evaluation for
Payne in a group of misdemeanor cases and later accepted a plea agreement
that required a mental-health evaluation. Two years before the trial in this case,
the court ordered another competency evaluation in two felony cases and then
sent Payne to Logansport State Hospital for restoration services. One year
before the trial in this case, the court was dealing with petitions to revoke
Payne’s probation in another felony case because of his failure to comply with
mental-health services.
[33] Then came the pretrial proceedings in this case, during which Payne remained
incarcerated. Payne said at his initial hearing that Christians are “undergoing
terrorism per nano technology program 18 United States Code Section 7501”
and that the Indiana Supreme Court is a “military court.” At another hearing
two weeks later, the trial court denied Payne’s request to represent himself
because he was “not capable of providing circumstances that would establish
anything close to a fair trial for his claims.” Shortly thereafter, Payne sent the
court an incomprehensible letter in which he referenced, among other things,
“AN ENTIRE PERJURIED CIVIL COURT,” a “SPY WIRETAB OPT
RECORD MACHINE SEEKER MONOGRAM SYMBOL SCRAPPLER
SCRAMBLER TERRORISM STRATEGY,” and the size of a civil jury.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 24 of 40
[34] At a hearing in October 2022, Payne mentioned “radar design technology in
Popular Science” while discussing DNA evidence, and the trial court told him,
“[Y]ou’re not making any sense.” Payne referred to himself as “the universal
opperhouse (sic) of the reserve room throne” and the “king of the world,”
referred to the prosecutor as a “maygoner,” and referred to Gangwer as “a
motion of wash.” Payne said he couldn’t obey the court’s order to provide a
DNA sample because “I am not a yet a [sic] conviction settlement.” He said the
judge is a “universal terrorist” and that his family was there to “execute” the
judge. He said “this maygonar (sic) solictris (sic) is, is, is not of use” and that
“no one is supposed to be in this place, right now. No one.” He said “I’m not in
Nebraska” and “I’m of this bailiwick.” After the hearing, Payne fought with
sheriff’s deputies in the hallway outside the courtroom.
[35] It was during this pretrial period that the Misdemeanor Cases were filed against
Payne in other Vanderburgh County courts and two psychologists found him
incompetent to stand trial. The first report was filed November 21, 2022, seven
weeks before the trial in this case. The report offered a diagnosis of “Delusional
Disorder, Persecutory Type and Grandiose Type, with Bizarre Content” and
noted that Payne “presented with grandiose and persecutory ideation” and “has
a pseudointellectual presentation, which is challenged by inaccuracies and
bizarre thought content.” The second report was filed December 16, 2022, three
weeks before the trial in this case. The report offered a diagnosis of
“schizophrenia spectrum disorder” and noted that Payne was “preoccupied
with religiously oriented delusional thought content,” “engaged in speech that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 25 of 40
was mostly disorganized, not germane to the question at hand, and which made
very little sense,” “acutely psychotic,” and “unable to communicate rationally.”
[36] We acknowledge the State’s suggestion that Payne’s mental condition might
have improved in the weeks between his evaluations in the Misdemeanor Cases
and his trial in this case. This seems highly unlikely, since there is no indication
in the record that Payne received any mental-health treatment during the eight
months he was incarcerated before trial. That said, we understand that mental
competency is not a static condition, Edwards v. State, 902 N.E.2d 821, 827 (Ind.
2009), so the fact that Payne was incompetent weeks or years before this trial
does not necessarily mean he was incompetent at the time of this trial.
Therefore, we also look to whether Payne showed any signs of incompetency at
trial. The trial court found there was “no evidence” of incompetency and that
Payne’s testimony was “pretty effective.” The transcript clearly shows
otherwise.
[37] Almost every time Payne opened his mouth at trial, he said something
nonsensical. He declared that “James never molested these kids” even though
no one had made that accusation. He spoke about “Article 11” of the “universal
declaration of human being rights.” He worried about “terrorism audio rack,
rack of recordings in here and bass coms and um, trens (sic), double boxes,”
“Rubik’s cube boxes,” and “out record out machines.” When asked his name,
Payne said, “My title is king, universal opperhouse (sic) (inaudible).” Regarding
Gangwer’s injuries, he said, “I said that no skull brain range is out of place,
okay. Hair tamed stylist goo. Strains are not a piot incision. Dishevelment nor
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 26 of 40
trained hairdo moved out of the body of its train of style. The open face oval
cranium unveiled frees me from false blame.” He said other people can see
through his eyes. He claimed to be “the injunction that shall shut down all
meganar sorretitus (sic) all over the planet because this is ridiculous.” He
referred to “plant drop agency or audio recordings, racket recorders, base
coms,” “clamps” that “clip to the heart” and “read the heart and simutones
(sic) give off um, the false light visuals,” and “science medical technicians liking
to try to lazer [sic] deterrents to my CBO cortex (inaudible) department to try to
stand that down.” And he spoke extensively about DNA being pricked from
infants’ heels for “universal government order” and “population control.” This
is just a sampling of the delusional thoughts Payne shared with the court and
the jury.
[38] Payne’s mental struggles continued after trial. During his interview for the
presentence investigation report, he “seemed detached from reality,” stated
“there is no such thing as a criminal court, all court is civil,” and asked if the
interviewer said Payne’s family “was in room 202 being raped.” Two months
later, a magistrate declared him incompetent to stand trial in the Misdemeanor
Cases after he repeatedly refused to appear for a competency hearing. In the
following days, the trial court in this case tried to hold a hearing on the motion
to set aside the verdict but couldn’t get Payne to participate. Payne insisted the
motion had already been granted and then claimed to be naked in his jail cell
and accused the judge of spying, stalking, terrorizing, and being a pervert. The
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 27 of 40
court ended the hearing and said the motion would have to be put on hold until
Payne was found competent.
[39] Notwithstanding this significant and disturbing evidence of incompetency, the
State insists that, at trial, Payne “demonstrated that he understood the nature of
the charges against him and was able to assist in his defense.” Appellee’s Br. p.
18. But the handful of transcript pages the State cites actually bolsters the
conclusion that Payne was incompetent.
[40] Citing Transcript Volume III, page 106, the State claims that “Payne sought to
testify at trial because he believed that the DNA analyst’s testimony was
exculpatory.” Id. That transcript page shows Payne said this:
Ryan Gangwer is excluded and, and, and because of, because of
blood regim (inaudible), when (inaudible), when, when the
babies – hospitals are, are pricked on the heel it has to go to a
paternity for the fathers as well as the Government for, for
protection of of, of the United States of America and plus the
whole entire country so everyone has a blood pricky. Anytime
you take a, a spittle, a smidget (sic) or a drop of blood on a DNA
database system, it has to read and profile a face. I don’t care
what anybody says.
Tr. Vol. III p. 106.
[41] Citing the next page of the transcript, the State asserts that Payne “wanted to
testify to argue that the surveillance video the State presented was falsified.”
Appellee’s Br. p. 19. That transcript page shows Payne said the following when
his attorney asked about a video he wanted to use: “That will, that will be the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 28 of 40
one, that will be the one with the – where you all – where they created the, they
created the video of the radar core design and then they enhanced it with a, a
copiscience (sic) camcorder.” Tr. Vol. III p. 107.
[42] Citing Transcript Volume III, pages 117-18 and 121, the State says that “Payne
testified that Gangwer was not a victim based on the DNA evidence.”
Appellee’s Br. p. 19. Those transcript pages show Payne talking about “that
staged alleged victim settlement determination case file contract,” “the call of
potential regim colous (sic) duty data recognition attachment,” “victimized
awareness radar colous (sic) DNA regimen attender,” and how “even after the
case file has made its belief system, it is in the falsity of, of, of what they created
to believe.” Tr. Vol. III pp. 117-18, 121.
[43] Citing Transcript Volume III, pages 128 and 135, the State claims that Payne
“reviewed the surveillance video with the jury and pointed out potential
inconsistencies in the video and the State’s version of events.” Appellee’s Br. p.
19. But those transcript pages show Payne saying two contradictory things
about the surveillance video. He first said the video doesn’t show Gangwer
being hit or bleeding (even though it clearly shows both, see Ex. 4) but then
claimed the State “created” the video of the “false incident.” Tr. Vol. III pp.
128, 135. He added, seemingly unprovoked, “Jim’s definitely not a f*g.” Id. at
135.
[44] Citing Transcript Volume III, page 145, the State says that Payne “explained to
the jury that he was not the suspect because in the 911 call Gangwer described
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 29 of 40
that the suspect was wearing a blue hat, but when Payne was taken into custody
later that night, he had a camo hat.” Appellee’s Br. p. 19. Payne did testify
about that discrepancy (with guidance from his attorney) but then immediately
launched into this diatribe about his “FBI number” and his relationship with
police dogs:
This documentation says an, an, an assault in progress and they
didn’t reclassify in the, in the, in the reclassification nature box.
They didn’t reclassify it. Pro (sic) --- an assault in progress and
which I didn’t commit a crime in any way, shape or fashion just
did not happen. Okay? Um. They have the alarm level as a one,
priority one. Medical leave. The medical priority. Note there’s
not a number in the, in that box. I had been all my life a
commontire, a commontire is someone with um, with – as, as
my Y alert number, FBI – the (inaudible), if you – if you have an
FBI number it says you’re, you’re, you’re a problem. Okay but
my FBI number speaks and says um, 248559WA1. That is wide
alert one. That’s a basic law. That means that I’m not a problem
and the officials all through my life are unprivileged to advance
in performance any alert, uh, uh, uh, alerts against me. Okay.
And so, so in this, in this – then this became a report and at no –
it says no essential court may branch assemble record operation.
This, this um, this central office actually released a branched
operation. They have canines. It says out with a canine so they,
they release cars, um, um, um and patrol officers uh, uh, um, as
um, when little dogs came out and played. Let me see. Um.
Because the dogs loved me so much they didn’t – if they were out
they, they – you know what I’m saying. They wouldn’t – they
probably – they wouldn’t be able to sit on me because uh,
because I – even though I never committed a crime these dogs
love me but that they – they wouldn’t be able to sit on me
because I, I play with EPD, EPD officer, EPD dogs a lot, a lot of
time so I know the dogs and their strategy but because, but
because um, I know the dogs, EPD dogs, um, and how they
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 30 of 40
work and how they uh, process, um, they have been friends with
me for quite a while so when this – if they release any dogs they
would not be – they, they wouldn’t, they wouldn’t attack me
because I’m a good person and they, they like me but at the same
time um, as um, the record shows um, these people release,
release uh, release dogs out[.]
Tr. Vol. III pp. 145-46.
[45] These facts and the others detailed above lead inexorably to the conclusion that
Payne was not competent to stand trial. Although he sometimes demonstrated
understanding of legal concepts, his persecutory thought and one-track mind
greatly limited his ability to work with counsel and aid in his defense. As a
result, his trial and conviction were a denial of federal due process and a
violation of Indiana Code section 35-36-3-1. See McManus, 814 N.E.2d at 260.
We must therefore reverse the conviction and habitual-offender finding in F5-
2862 and the revocation of probation in F6-4879 and remand for further
proceedings in both cases. We caution all involved in those proceedings to
closely monitor Payne’s mental state and to ensure he is competent before any
re-trial or probation-revocation hearing.
[46] Reversed and remanded.
Kenworthy, J., concurs.
Felix, J., dissents with separate opinion.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 31 of 40
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Matthew J. McGovern
Fishers, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Theodore E. Rokita
Attorney General
Caroline G. Templeton
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 32 of 40
Felix, Judge, dissenting.
[47] I respectfully dissent. Payne has not shown that the trial court clearly erred by
denying his motion to set aside the verdict. Accordingly, I would affirm the trial
court’s decision.
[48] On appeal, Payne claims his motion to set aside the verdict was brought
pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 50(A). Such motions challenge only the
sufficiency of the evidence supporting the judgment or verdict. See Ind. Trial
Rule 50(A). Here, Payne challenged his convictions based on his alleged
incompetence to stand trial, so his motion was in substance a motion for relief
from judgment under Trial Rule 60(B) and should be treated as such.
[49] Because the trial court entered findings and conclusions within the
Chronological Case Summary in ruling on Payne’s motion to set aside the
verdict, a two-tiered standard of review applies here. See Tibbs v. State, 59
N.E.3d 1005, 1019 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (citing Stonger v. Sorrell, 776 N.E.2d
353, 358 (Ind. 2002)). First, this court determines “whether the evidence
supports the findings and then whether the findings support the judgment.” Id.(citing Stonger, 776 N.E.2d at 358). The trial court’s findings and conclusions
will be set aside only if they are clearly erroneous. Id. (citing Stonger, 776
N.E.2d at 358). This court “may not reweigh the evidence or reassess the
credibility of the witnesses.” Id. (citing Stonger, 776 N.E.2d at 358). Instead, this
court “must accept the ultimate facts as stated by the trial court if there is
evidence to sustain them.” Id. (citing Stonger, 776 N.E.2d at 358).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 33 of 40
[50] The trial court denied Payne’s motion to set aside the verdict because it
determined Payne had been competent to stand trial. Payne argues this
determination was error. To determine whether a defendant is competent to
stand trial, the trial court must decide “whether the defendant has sufficient
present ability to consult with defense counsel with a reasonable degree of
rational understanding, and whether the defendant has a rational as well as a
factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” State v. Davis, 898
N.E.2d 281, 284 (Ind. 2008) (quoting Adams v. State, 509 N.E.2d 812, 814 (Ind.
1987)). This court views a trial court’s competency decision “from a deferential
perspective” and will reverse that decision only “if it was clearly erroneous,
unsupported by the facts and circumstances before the court and the reasonable
conclusions that can be drawn therefrom.” McManus v. State, 814 N.E.2d 253,
260–61 (Ind. 2004) (quoting Brewer v. State, 646 N.E.2d 1382, 1384 (Ind. 1995)).
[51] Whether a defendant was competent to stand trial is an issue that “may be
raised at any time, including long after trial, conviction, and sentencing have
occurred.” Smith v. State, 443 N.E.2d 1187, 1189 (Ind. 1983) (citing Evans v.
State, 261 Ind. 148, 300 N.E.2d 882 (1973); Tinsley v. State, 260 Ind. 577, 298
N.E.2d 429 (1973)). However, a defendant’s “[m]ental competency is not a
static condition and is to be determined at the time of trial.” Edwards v. State,
902 N.E.2d 821, 827 (Ind. 2009). Not every occurrence of behavior that may be
considered “outside the norm” is a compelling indicator that the defendant is
incompetent to stand trial, but such occurrences may have a “cumulative
effect.” Mato v. State, 429 N.E.2d 945, 947 (Ind. 1982). Accordingly, the trial
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 34 of 40
court’s “observations of a defendant in court can be an adequate basis for
finding that a competency hearing is not necessary.” Isom v. State, 170 N.E.3d
623, 653 (Ind. 2021) (quoting Cotton v. State, 753 N.E.2d 589, 591 (Ind. 2001)).
This is particularly true where, as here, no petition for a competency hearing
was filed. See Mato, 429 N.E.2d at 947.
[52] Additionally, the trial court, in its role as factfinder, may discredit or disregard
an expert’s testimony and opinions regarding a defendant’s competency. See
Barcroft v. State, 111 N.E.3d 997, 1003 (Ind. 2018) (citing Galloway v. State, 938
N.E.2d 699, 709 (Ind. 2010)) (“Even when experts are unanimous in their
opinion, the factfinder may discredit their testimony—or disregard it
altogether—and rely instead on other probative evidence from which to infer
the defendant’s sanity.”); Galloway, 938 N.E.2d at 709 (citing Cate v. State, 644
N.E.2d 546, 547 (Ind. 1994)); Thompson v. State, 804 N.E.2d 1146, 1149 (Ind.
2004) (concluding the factfinder is “entitled to decide whether to accept or
reject testimony that represents a witness’s opinion,” including an expert
witness’s opinion).
[53] It would be a fool’s errand to attempt to suggest that Payne was coherent and
logical throughout the entire proceedings. This dissent will not attempt such a
feat. Payne said certain things that can only be described as bizarre and
unintelligible as the majority recorded and is rightfully concerned with.
[54] However, the record also contains evidence that Payne was competent. There is
no indication in the record that Payne or his public defender raised any
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 35 of 40
concerns to the trial court about Payne’s competency before filing the motion to
set aside the verdict.2 At a pre-trial hearing on September 16, 2022, Payne’s
public defender indicated to the trial court that she had no concerns about
Payne’s competency: she did “not believe that he is incompetent under the legal
standard of incompetency. He understands that I’m his lawyer. He clearly
understands that you’re the Judge. He understands the prosecutor’s role. He has
documents in a file folder that he keeps with him.” Supp. Tr. Vol. II at 9. Plus,
this public defender had represented Payne in at least one prior criminal case.
Therefore, she had more experience with Payne than simply in this case.
[55] The State points out in its brief that Payne wanted to testify at trial in part
because he wanted to highlight the DNA analyst’s testimony, which he believed
was exculpatory. Before taking the stand, Payne told the trial court,
[The prosecutor] completely lost yesterday even if, even in his
early initial argument he said for the record – what did you say,
cut it off. Okay. He said for the record we understand that there
was no DNA content on the wrench of Ryan Gangwer. He told
the jury that. That killed the case. Ain’t no such thing as going
further.
Tr. Vol. III at 112. And when he testified, Payne noted that the State’s DNA
evidence “did not show any way shape or a fashion a DNA regimen of Ryan
2
As a matter of fact, at the September 16, 2022, pretrial hearing, Payne’s counsel explained, “[H]e did
mention to me at my last visit on the 7th of September that he knew that the Court was going to order him to
be evaluated and say he was crazy. He said he wasn’t crazy.” Supp. Tr. Vol. II at 10. This suggests that
Payne’s counsel and Payne had discussed the potential of requesting competency proceedings but chose not
to pursue that option.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 36 of 40
Gangwer.” Id. at 118. Payne believed that the absence of the victim’s blood on
the wrench, which was used to beat on the victim’s face, was an important part
of his defense. That belief was not irrational and is evidence that Payne had an
understanding of potential defenses to the charged crime in this case.
[56] As the majority sets out in detail, the trial court had observed Payne in court on
numerous occasions and had a long history of interacting with Payne in that
setting. At the September 2022 pre-trial hearing, the trial court noted,
. . . I’ve dealt with James a lot . . . . I haven’t seen anything in
this particular case or the case that preceded this really, that
would give me cause to believe that he does not meet the
standard of competency as set out in the Indiana Statute. I think
he has a clear understanding of the nature of the charges. He
knows he’s alleged to have struck someone in the head with a
wrench and the particulars concerning that. He knows obviously
that that’s illegal. Um, he has a better than average
understanding of Court procedures in terms of . . . [w]hat goes on
and how it goes on. . . . He tends to focus on things that he feels
are most relevant or important and to the exclusion of just about
everything else, and so that’s the way it has to be or he’s not
going to participate and . . . that’s not to me incompetency.
Supp. Tr. Vol. II at 10. Similarly, in denying Payne’s motion to set aside the
verdict, the trial court made the following statement:
Throughout the proceedings the Defendant appeared numerous
times. Mr. Payne has been in my Court on numerous occasions.
I’ve had a chance to see him, talk with him. Occasionally,
exchange pleasantries as we did this morning or this afternoon
and I saw no evidence that he was – lacked the competence to
stand trial. There was never any concern in . . . that regard
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 37 of 40
brought to the Court’s attention by either side. The finding in
another case is what it is. I obviously can’t change that. . . . [I]n
my observations of you during that time, Mr. Payne, you’re not
incapable of assisting in your defense. You clearly understand
how the legal system works. You testified in [sic] your own
behalf. I thought your testimony, truthfully, was pretty effective.
You . . . answered questions and you defended your position and
you understood what was important and what wasn’t important .
...
Tr. Vol. III at 218.
[57] Although the trial court clearly expressed concern about Payne’s ability to
represent himself at the beginning of this case, that inquiry is separate from
Payne’s ability to understand the proceedings and assist in the preparation of a
defense, see Edwards, 902 N.E.2d at 824. In fact, both Dr. Hurley and Dr. Culley
noted in their reports that Payne was well aware of and understood the charges
against him in this case. When Dr. Hurley asked Payne about his charges in
this case, Payne told Dr. Hurley that the court had ordered him to submit to
DNA testing but he had refused to do so and that his case should be dismissed
because Gangwer’s DNA was not found on the wrench. Dr. Culley reported
that Payne “initially wanted to discuss the original charge which resulted in his
current incarceration rather than the charges which are the focus of this court
order. He required frequent redirection to the charges which are the subject of
this evaluation,” that is, the misdemeanor charges. Appellant’s App. Vol. IV at
218. In other words, Payne was focused on his defense to the charges in this
case to the exclusion of any misdemeanor charges, which is likely a part of the
reason the doctors found him incompetent in the misdemeanor causes.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 38 of 40
[58] Furthermore, because mental competency is determined at the time of trial,
Edwards, 902 N.E.2d at 826, Dr. Culley’s conclusion in November 2022 and
Dr. Hurley’s conclusion in December 2022 that Payne was not competent to
stand trial in the misdemeanor causes are not determinative of whether Payne
was competent to stand trial on January 9 and 10, 2023, in this case. In the
absence of evidence tending to show that Payne’s mental state either improved
or diminished between the dates he was evaluated and the date of his trial, it is
imperative that we rely on the trial court’s observations of Payne during that
time as much, if not more so, than the cold record.3
[59] Moreover, it was within the trial court’s discretion to discredit or disregard Dr.
Hurley’s and Dr. Culley’s conclusions, and it was also within the trial court’s
discretion to weigh its own observations of Payne before, during, and after trial
against the doctors’ conclusions and determine that its observations outweighed
those conclusions. See Isom, 170 N.E.3d at 653 (quoting Cotton, 753 N.E.2d at
591); Barcroft, 111 N.E.3d at 1003 (citing Galloway, 938 N.E.2d at 709);
Galloway, 938 N.E.2d at 709 (citing Cate, 644 N.E.2d at 547; Thompson, 804N.E.2d at 1149). This court cannot reassess Dr. Hurley’s and Dr. Culley’s
credibility, nor can it reweigh the evidence. See Tibbs, 59 N.E.3d at 1019 (citing
Stonger, 776 N.E.2d at 358).
3
During the trial, it was Payne who—over his own counsel’s inaccurate advice—argued that the State could
not cross-examine him about his prior crimes of dishonesty because those prior crimes occurred more than
ten years prior. See Ind. Evidence Rule 609(b). In fact, during this exchange, Payne contended that the use of
his priors would be “prejudicial” and a violation of a “motion in limine.” Tr. Vol. III at 103–04 ,109.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 39 of 40
[60] Most importantly, and the reason for this dissent, when there is conflicting
evidence concerning a defendant’s competency, this court must look to the
evidence supporting the trial court’s decision; it is only when that decision is
wholly unsupported that we may reverse. McManus, 814 N.E.2d at 260–61
(quoting Brewer, 646 N.E.2d at 1384). Instead of focusing on the evidence that
the trial court could have used to make a decision regarding Payne’s alleged
incompetency, we should be determining whether there was evidence of his
competency. See id. Based on my review of the record, I conclude there is
evidence in this record supporting the trial court’s determination that Payne
was competent to stand trial on January 9 and 10, 2023. Therefore, the trial
court did not clearly err in making this decision and thus did not clearly err in
denying Payne’s motion to set aside the verdict. I would affirm the trial court’s
denial of that motion.4
[61] Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
4
Because the majority does not reach Payne’s other claims, I will not address them here other than to note
that I would conclude they do not have merit.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2325 | November 13, 2024 Page 40 of 40