Edward Blackburn v. State of Indiana

FILED
Aug 19 2019, 8:48 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Adam C. Squiller Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
John M. Haecker Attorney General of Indiana
Auburn, Indiana
J.T. Whitehead
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Edward Blackburn, August 19, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-2915
v. Appeal from the Starke Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Kim Hall, Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff Trial Court Cause No.
75C01-1703-MR-2
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] Edward Blackburn appeals his murder conviction. He raises two issues on
appeal:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-2915 | August 19, 2019 Page 1 of 12
I. Whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to continue the
jury trial based on the absence of a witness; and
II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to instruct
the jury on the alleged lesser included offense of involuntary
manslaughter.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On March 3, 2017, Blackburn was driving his girlfriend of around two months,
Augusta Hadden, home. Raymond Higdon and his fiancée Terri Fields were
driving in the opposite direction to drop off their friend Cord Colgrove after
spending the entire day together. Higdon was driving, with Colgrove in the
passenger seat and Fields between them. As the vehicles passed each other,
Colgrove spotted Hadden in the red truck Blackburn was driving. He told
Higdon, “Hey, there’s Gus. Turn around.” Transcript Vol. 3 at 147. “Gus”
referred to Hadden, Colgrove’s ex-girlfriend.
[4] Hadden and Colgrove had dated on and off for five years, but Hadden had
recently broken up with him. Since then, Colgrove had called and texted
Hadden numerous times, threatening her new boyfriend and begging her to take
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-2915 | August 19, 2019 Page 2 of 12
him back. 1 Hadden responded infrequently, only to tell Colgrove to leave her
alone. She tried unsuccessfully to block Colgrove’s number, and around
February 9, she got a new phone instead.
[5] Neither Higdon nor Fields recognized the red truck. Nor could they identify its
occupants at the time. Nevertheless, Higdon stopped in the middle of the road,
turned his truck around, and followed Blackburn’s truck, speeding up to keep
up with it. Both cars went through a stop sign. A few minutes later, the red
truck turned down a residential lane before stopping in a grassy area. Higdon
pulled up on the red truck’s driver’s side.
[6] In the passenger’s seat, Colgrove handed his cell phone and wallet to Higdon
saying, “Just in case anything happens.” Transcript Vol. 4 at 10. Higdon said,
“Man, don’t be a retard.” Id. Colgrove assured him that he was “just going to
put this bitch on front street.” Id.
[7] Fields and Higdon noted that the driver’s window of the red truck was partially
rolled down. They could see two individuals, later identified as Blackburn and
Hadden, inside. Colgrove opened his door and stepped outside the truck. He
took a step or two forward, raised his hands, and said, without yelling, “What
the fuck, Gus?” Transcript Vol. 3 at 162. In that amount of time, Blackburn,
who was in the driver’s seat, rolled his window down the rest of the way and
1
On February 8, phone records indicate that Colgrove texted Hadden twenty-six times, telling her he loved
and needed her more than anything and offering her hundreds of dollars to spend at the Casino if she would
talk to him.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-2915 | August 19, 2019 Page 3 of 12
fired his gun. The bullet hit Colgrove in the mouth, fracturing several teeth and
his second cervical vertebra and perforating his carotid artery. He died at the
scene.
[8] Colgrove and Blackburn had never met face to face. However, Blackburn
believed Colgrove had vandalized his car one night while he was with Hadden.
Blackburn also told one of Hadden’s friends, sometime in February, that
Colgrove had snitched on him to the police and that when he saw Colgrove, he
“had something for his ass.” Transcript Vol. 4 at 52. Blackburn simultaneously
leaned back in his chair, pulled up his shirt to reveal the butt of a pistol, and
smacked it.
[9] Fields and Higdon called the police and an ambulance for Colgrove while
Blackburn and Hadden backed away, hit some trees, and fled. They met up
with some of Blackburn’s friends who helped him burn his truck. Blackburn
and Hadden hid out in a hotel until police found them the next day.
[10] Blackburn was charged with murder on March 6, 2017. In October 2017,
Blackburn filed a motion to compel grant of immunity and/or for alternative
relief citing the need to have Hadden testify without fear of being charged as an
accomplice. 2 The trial court denied the motion, citing lack of authority to
compel the State to give Hadden immunity. In March 2018, Blackburn filed a
2
Hadden was initially charged as an after-the-fact accomplice under the theory that she was the one to throw
her phone out the window in an attempt to avoid being tracked by the police. This charge was later
dismissed without prejudice due to a lack of evidence.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-2915 | August 19, 2019 Page 4 of 12
motion to continue the trial to August due to the recent acquisition of an expert
witness that needed time to prepare. The court granted this motion. Then, one
week before trial was to begin, Blackburn filed a motion to continue based on
the absence of a witness, Hadden. Blackburn supplemented this motion twice
and renewed it on the morning of the first day of his trial. The trial court
denied the motion to continue. The case was tried by jury from August 13,
2018 to August 21, 2018. After the close of evidence, Blackburn submitted
proposed final jury instructions, including instructions on reckless homicide,
involuntary manslaughter, and pointing a firearm at another person. The latter
two instructions were denied.
[11] The jury found Blackburn guilty of murder. Thereafter, in November 2018, the
trial court sentenced him to sixty-five years in prison. Blackburn now appeals.
Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
Discussion and Decision
I. Motion to Continue
[12] Blackburn argues that the trial court improperly denied his motion to continue
based on the absence of witness Hadden. Upon motion, a trial may be
continued at the court’s discretion and shall be continued upon a showing of
good cause established by affidavit. Ind. Trial Rule 53.5. When a defendant
requests a continuance due to the absence of a material witness and the
statutory criteria are met, the defendant is entitled to a continuance as a matter
of right. Elmore v. State, 657 N.E.2d 1216, 1218 (Ind. 1995). Although absence
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-2915 | August 19, 2019 Page 5 of 12
of a material witness is a statutory ground for a continuance, if the motion for
continuance does not meet the statutory criteria, then the trial court may use its
discretion to grant or deny the motion. Id. Decisions on motions made at the
court’s discretion are given substantial deference. Id. There is always a strong
presumption that the trial court properly exercised its discretion. Id. We will
not disturb the trial court’s decision absent a clear demonstration of abuse of
discretion resulting in prejudice. Vaughn v. State, 590 N.E.2d 134, 135-36 (Ind.
1992).
[13] Blackburn argues that he fulfilled the requirements outlined in Ind. Code § 35-
36-7-1 governing motions to continue due to the absence of a material witness
and thus was entitled a continuance as a matter of right. Like the trial court, we
are not convinced. I.C. § 35-36-7-1(b)(2) requires the affiant indicate the
probability of procuring the witness’s testimony within a reasonable time,
which Blackburn failed to do. As the trial court noted, Blackburn admits in his
affidavit, “I do not have any other resources for locating Ms. Hadden at this
time.” Appellant’s Confidential Appendix Vol. 2 of 3 at 109. He can only guess that
she may be in Mobile, Alabama, a general location he initially proposed during
a pretrial hearing to discuss the defendant’s motion to compel immunity for
Hadden from the State on October 19, 2017. This hearing took place nearly ten
months before the trial, and Blackburn was unable to make any progress in
finding Hadden in the intervening months, and admitted in his affidavit to not
having any prospects to change this situation. As such, he failed to argue that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-2915 | August 19, 2019 Page 6 of 12
Hadden would ever be located, let alone that her testimony would be procured
within a reasonable time.
[14] Because Blackburn’s motion to continue did not satisfy the statutory
requirements, we will review the court’s decision only for an abuse of
discretion. “Whether the trial court properly exercised its authority includes a
review of whether the competing interests of the parties were properly evaluated
and compared, and if not, whether prejudice to the movant from maintaining
the schedule of events occurred.” Vaughn, 590 N.E.2d at 136.
[15] Blackburn was not prejudiced by the denial of the motion to continue. While
Hadden did not testify, cell phone records of texts exchanged between her and
Blackburn and between her and Colgrove were admitted to support Blackburn’s
claim that Colgrove was harassing Hadden and threatening him. Blackburn
also took the stand to testify as to his side of events including the assertion that
he was acting in self-defense when he shot Colgrove. While Blackburn claims
Hadden’s testimony would have supported his, there’s no real way to know that
it would have. In any event, since Blackburn testified, the jury was presented
with his version of events in considering whether to convict him. Between
Blackburn’s testimony and the admission of the phone records, the claimed
substance of Hadden’s testimony reached the jury. See Walker v. State, 471
N.E.2d 1089, 1092 (Ind. 1984) (finding no abuse of discretion when the trial
court denied defendant’s motion to continue due to the absence of an alibi
witness that had not been located in six months of searching where the only
leads would take days to resolve and the defendant testified as to his
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-2915 | August 19, 2019 Page 7 of 12
whereabouts on the day in question so that the jury was not denied the
opportunity to consider defendant’s explanation of the events); Laster v. State,
956 N.E.2d 187, 193 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (finding that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to continue when weighing
the unlikelihood of finding a witness whose location was unknown against the
inconvenience and expense of rescheduling a trial).
[16] We affirm the trial court’s denial of Blackburn’s motion to continue.
II. Jury Instruction
[17] Blackburn argues that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to instruct
the jury on Level 5 felony involuntary manslaughter. When determining
whether to instruct a jury on a lesser included offense of the crime charged, the
trial court must perform a three step analysis. First, the trial court must
compare the statute defining the crime charged with the statute defining the
alleged lesser included offense to determine if the latter is inherently included in
the former. Wright v. State, 658 N.E.2d 563, 566 (Ind. 1995). Second, if the
offense is not inherently included, the trial court must then determine if the
alleged lesser included offense is factually included in the crime charged by
comparing the statute defining the alleged lesser included offense to the
charging instrument in the case. Id. at 567. An alleged lesser included offense
is factually included if the means used to commit the crime charged include all
of the elements of the alleged lesser included offense. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-2915 | August 19, 2019 Page 8 of 12
[18] If the alleged lesser included offense is neither inherently nor factually included
in the crime charged, the trial court should not give an instruction on the
alleged lesser included offense. Id. If, however, the trial court has determined
that an alleged lesser included offense is either inherently or factually included
in the crime charged, it must look at the evidence presented in the case by both
parties to determine if there is a serious evidentiary dispute about the element or
elements distinguishing the greater from the lesser offense and if, in view of this
dispute, a jury could conclude that the lesser offense was committed but not the
greater. Id. If a jury could so conclude, then the trial court will be found to
have committed reversible error by not giving an instruction, when requested,
on the lesser offense. Id.
[19] It is well established, as Blackburn concedes, that involuntary manslaughter is
not an inherently lesser included offense of murder. Id. at 569; compare Ind.
Code § 35-42-1-1 with I.C. § 35-42-1-4. He therefore argues that involuntary
manslaughter is a factually included offense. Generally, cases involving
involuntary manslaughter as factually included lesser offenses find their basis in
battery, which we do not have here. E.g. Lynch v. State, 571 N.E.2d 537, 539
(Ind. 1991) (holding that involuntary manslaughter was a factually lesser
included offense of murder where the killing was obviously accomplished with
a touching, i.e., defendant “battered” victim with a shooting). Blackburn,
however, makes novel use of another part of the involuntary manslaughter
statute, namely that “A person who kills another human being while
committing or attempting to commit: (1) a Level 5 or Level 6 felony that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-2915 | August 19, 2019 Page 9 of 12
inherently poses a risk of serious bodily injury… commits involuntary
manslaughter.” I.C. § 35-42-1-4(b). Blackburn directs us to Ind. Code § 35-46-
4-3(b), which provides that knowingly or intentionally pointing a firearm at
another person is a Level 6 felony. We will assume without deciding that
pointing a firearm at another person inherently poses a risk of serious bodily
injury. With this assumption in mind, involuntary manslaughter is a factually
included lesser offense because the means used to commit the murder as
charged clearly included pointing a firearm at Colgrove prior to shooting him. 3
Thus, we must turn to whether there is a serious evidentiary dispute such that
the jury could conclude that the lesser offense was committed but not the
greater.
[20] Involuntary manslaughter contemplates an incidental killing of another. See
Lynch, 571 N.E.2d at 538 (noting “Involuntary manslaughter … contemplates
an incidental killing that occurs during a battery”). Thus, for an involuntary
manslaughter instruction to be warranted here, the pointing of a firearm would
be knowing or intentional, but the pulling of the trigger would be incidental.
Here we have the opposite. By claiming he shot in warning, Blackburn denied
knowingly or intentionally pointing a firearm at Colgrove but admitted to
intentionally pulling the trigger. In other words, Blackburn claims he
intentionally fired a gun and incidentally the firearm was aimed at Colgrove’s
3
Blackburn’s charging information reads “Blackburn did knowingly or intentionally kill another human
being, to-wit: Cord Colgrove, by shooting him in the head,” Appellant’s Confidential Appendix Vol. 2 at 3.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-2915 | August 19, 2019 Page 10 of 12
head. If Blackburn’s testimony is taken as true, it would warrant a reckless
homicide instruction, which was given, but still would not warrant an
instruction of involuntary manslaughter.
[21] There is no serious evidentiary dispute that Blackburn, by shooting Colgrove in
the head at close range, only intended to point his firearm at him. There is no
evidence to corroborate Blackburn’s testimony that he intended the shot as a
warning—he did not verbally warn Colgrove to stay away or even give
Colgrove time to register that Blackburn had a gun before pulling the trigger.
By most accounts, Colgrove stepped out of the car, raised his hands, said
“What the fuck, Gus?” and was shot in the head. Transcript Vol. 3 at 162. The
instruction of involuntary manslaughter was not warranted.
[22] Further, Blackburn’s statement to Hadden’s friend that he “had something for
[Colgrove’s] ass” while patting his gun indicates a murderous intent. Transcript
Vol. 4 at 52. Blackburn’s lack of verbal warning at the time of the incident for
Colgrove to back off before Blackburn fired his gun belies Blackburn’s
testimony that the shot was only meant to warn Colgrove off, not kill him. The
jury had the opportunity to convict Blackburn for reckless homicide or acquit
him on the basis of self-defense but still chose to convict him of murder, a
knowing or intentional killing.
[23] There being no evidentiary dispute, the trial court acted properly by refusing to
instruct the jury on the offenses of involuntary manslaughter.
[24] Judgment affirmed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-2915 | August 19, 2019 Page 11 of 12
Kirsch, J. and Vaidik, C.J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-2915 | August 19, 2019 Page 12 of 12