Johnny Gomillia v. State of Indiana

Mar 19 2015, 10:06 am
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Jane H. Conley Gregory F. Zoeller
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Jesse R. Drum
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Johnny Gomillia, March 19, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Cause No.
49A02-1408-CR-572
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
Cause No. 49G16-1402-FD-9596
State of Indiana,
Appellee-Plaintiff. The Honorable Helen Marchal,
Judge
Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1408-CR-572 | March 19, 2015 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Johnny Gomillia appeals his conviction for Class D felony attempted
obstruction of justice. We reverse.
Issue
[2] Gomillia raises one issue, which we restate as whether there is sufficient
evidence to support his conviction.
Facts
[3] On February 23, 2014, Gomillia was incarcerated in the Marion County Jail.
That day, using the PIN assigned to Gomillia, a man called Samantha Gaines,
a witness in a domestic violence case against David Madriz, who was
incarcerated in the same block of the Marion County Jail as Gomillia. The
caller told Gaines that, if she did not want to come to court, she did not have to
come to court. He said that Gaines should act like she is coming to court to
testify against Madriz and then, on the day of trial, not show up to court. The
caller told Gaines that, if she did not go to court, the charges would be dropped,
and Madriz would be released.
[4] The State charged Gomillia with Class D felony attempted obstruction of
justice. At the jury trial, Gomillia claimed that his PIN had been stolen and
that he did not make the call. A jury found Gomillia guilty. He now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1408-CR-572 | March 19, 2015 Page 2 of 5
Analysis
[5] Gomillia argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction.
When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we neither
reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses. Bailey v. State, 979
N.E.2d 133, 135 (Ind. 2012). We view the evidence—even if conflicting—and
all reasonable inferences drawn from it in a light most favorable to the
conviction and affirm if there is substantial evidence of probative value
supporting each element of the crime from which a reasonable trier of fact
could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
[6] At the time Gomillia was charged, obstruction of justice was defined in relevant
part as:
(a) A person who:
(1) knowingly or intentionally induces, by threat, coercion, or
false statement, a witness or informant in an official proceeding
or investigation to:
(A) withhold or unreasonably delay in producing any
testimony, information, document, or thing;
*****
commits obstruction of justice, a Class D felony.
[7] Ind. Code 35-44.1-2-2(a)(1)(A) (2012). “A person attempts to commit a crime
when, acting with the culpability required for commission of the crime, he
engages in conduct that constitutes a substantial step toward commission of the
crime.” I.C. § 35-41-5-1 (2012). The State alleged that Gomillia attempted to
commit obstruction of justice by inducing Gaines to withhold testimony “by
threat, coercion or false statement” “by calling Samantha Gains [sic] and telling
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1408-CR-572 | March 19, 2015 Page 3 of 5
her not to come to court in the case involving David Madriz so that charges
would be dropped.” App. p. 17.
[8] Gomillia contends there is insufficient proof that the caller “was knowingly
using false information to induce the witness not to go to trial . . . .” 1
Appellant’s Br. p. 9. The State argues that it established Gomillia’s statements
were false through the testimony of Indianapolis Metropolitan Police
Department Detective Tiffany Woods, who stated that a body attachment can
be issued to secure a witness’s presence in court and that, because there were
other eyewitnesses, Madriz’s trial could have proceeded without Gaines’s
testimony. Thus, we must determine whether the statute required the State to
prove that Gomillia knew the statements were false, not just that they were in
fact false.
[9] “Penal statutes should be construed strictly against the State and ambiguities
should be resolved in favor of the accused.” Merritt v. State, 829 N.E.2d 472,
475 (Ind. 2005). Although statutes should not be narrowed to exclude cases
they would fairly cover, we assume that the language in a statute was used
intentionally and that every word should be given effect and meaning. Id. “We
1
Gomillia cites Sheppard v. State, 484 N.E.2d 984, 987 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985), and Brown v. State, 859 N.E.2d
1269 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), both of which involved inducement by coercion, not false statements, and are not
instructive here. He also cites Moore v. State, 845 N.E.2d 225, 228 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), which is not
instructive because its sufficiency analysis was dicta and involved a different subsection of the obstruction of
justice statute. See Howell v. State, 921 N.E.2d 503, 508 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (“The dictum in Moore regarding
the sufficiency of evidence to support the conviction does not constitute binding precedent.”).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1408-CR-572 | March 19, 2015 Page 4 of 5
seek to give a statute practical application by construing it in a way favoring
public convenience and avoiding absurdity, hardship, and injustice.” Id.
[10] Pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-41-2-2(d), “Unless the statute defining the
offense provides otherwise, if a kind of culpability is required for commission of
an offense, it is required with respect to every material element of the prohibited
conduct.” Accordingly, the State was required to prove that Gomillia knew the
statements were false when he communicated them to Gaines and not just that
the statements were in fact false.
[11] Here, there is no evidence that Gomillia knew the statements were false. In
fact, Detective Woods testified it is a commonly held belief that the absence of a
witness means the dismissal of a case. See Tr. p. 76. Without any evidence
suggesting Gomillia knew the statements were false, there is insufficient
evidence to establish that he knowingly or intentionally attempted to induce
Gaines not to testify by false statement.
Conclusion
[12] Because the State did not establish that Gomillia knew the statements were false
when he made them, the State failed to prove the attempted obstruction of
justice charge. We reverse.
[13] Reversed.
May, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1408-CR-572 | March 19, 2015 Page 5 of 5