Carlos Villaruel v. State of Indiana , 52 N.E.3d 834 ( 2016 )

FILED
Mar 24 2016, 9:06 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Neil L. Weisman Gregory F. Zoeller
South Bend, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Christina D. Pace
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Carlos Villaruel, March 24, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Cause No.
71A03-1506-CR-544
v. Appeal from the St. Joseph
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable John M.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Marnocha, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
71D02-1404-FD-255
Barnes, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] Carlos Villaruel appeals his convictions for Class D felony intimidation and
Class A misdemeanor battery. We reverse and remand.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 71A03-1506-CR-544 | March 24, 2016 Page 1 of 11
Issues
[2] The restated issues are:
I. whether the trial court erred by failing to analyze Villaruel’s
Batson objection; and
II. Whether the evidence is sufficient to support Villaruel’s
conviction for intimidation and allow him to be retried on
that charge.
Facts
[3] On April 3, 2014, Officers Jeffrey Cummins and Timothy Cichowicz of the
South Bend Police Department responded to a 911 call from Shayla Swank.
When the officers arrived, they encountered Swank, who was crying and had a
bloody lip and a mark next to her eye. Villaruel later admitted that he hit
Swank. Officer Cichowicz escorted Swank to Villaruel’s residence, where the
incident between Villaruel and Swank took place. Officer Cichowicz knocked
on the door, and Villaruel invited the officers into his residence. Officer
Cichowicz observed Villaruel “had been drinking a little bit, but nothing
major.” Tr. p. 119. He was calm and “able to function and understand [the
officers].” Id. at 119, 156. Officer Cummins noted Villaruel slurred his words,
smelled of alcohol, and had glassy eyes. See id at 182.
[4] The officers arrested Villaruel, and Officer Cummins placed him in handcuffs
and transported him to the St. Joseph County Jail. During the ride to the jail,
Villaruel “progressively got more belligerent” and called Officer Cummins
names. Id. at 160. “He told me repeatedly that he was going to kick me in the
balls . . . Then as I was pulling up to the jail, that’s when he started telling me
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 71A03-1506-CR-544 | March 24, 2016 Page 2 of 11
he was going to kill me.” Id. at 161. “Then he started saying that he makes
deliveries and if he sees me, he’ll remember my face. If he sees my face again,
he’ll put out my face, he would kill me. He would remember my face and put
out your [sic] lights.” Id. Villaruel testified he did not remember making some
of the foregoing statements to Officer Cummins but admitted he threatened to
kill him. See id. at 241-43. While Officer Cummins and Villaruel were in the
jail vestibule, Villaruel continued to threaten Officer Cummins. He said the
Spanish word for “gun” and repeatedly said he was going to kill Officer
Cummins. Id. at 162-63.
[5] While waiting in the jail’s vestibule, there was an altercation, and Villaruel was
injured. Officer Cummins transported him to the hospital for treatment. On
the way to the hospital, “he threatened [Officer Cummins’s] family then. He
talked about how he worked landscaping and he would see them sometime and
pretty much kill my family before me.” Id. at 168.
[6] The State charged Villaruel with Class D felony intimidation and Class A
misdemeanor domestic battery. On July 23, 2014, the State added a third
charge—resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor. That same date,
Villaruel pled guilty to domestic battery and resisting law enforcement, but he
withdrew his plea on September 24, 2014. On April 15, 2015, the State
amended the language of Count I and amended Count II so that it charged
Villaruel with Class A misdemeanor battery.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 71A03-1506-CR-544 | March 24, 2016 Page 3 of 11
[7] Villaruel’s jury trial was held on April 27, 2015. During jury selection, the State
moved to strike for cause the only Hispanic venireperson, Ms. V., from the
panel. The State ultimately used a peremptory strike on Ms. V., and Villaruel
objected citing Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712 (1986). The trial
court allowed the strike after stating, “There is no Batson issue for Hispanics.”
Tr. p. 77. The jury found Villaruel guilty of Counts I and II.1 On May 12,
2015, the trial court sentenced Villaruel to an aggregate sentence of two and
one-half years in the Department of Correction. Villaruel now appeals.
Analysis
I. Batson claim
[8] Villaruel first argues the trial court erred by overruling his Batson objection. It is
well-settled that using a peremptory challenge to strike a potential juror solely
on the basis of race violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution. Jeter v. State, 888 N.E.2d 1257,
1262 (Ind. 2008) (citing Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712 (1986)),
cert. denied. The constitutional interests at stake in Batson “‘are not limited to
the rights possessed by the defendant on trial, nor to those citizens who desire
to participate in the administration of the law, as jurors,’ but extend to the
entire community . . . .” United States v. Stephens, 421 F.3d 503, 510 (7th Cir.
1
It appears the State dismissed the resisting law enforcement charge, but it is not clear when. Nonetheless,
Villaruel was tried only on the charges of intimidation and battery.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 71A03-1506-CR-544 | March 24, 2016 Page 4 of 11
2005) (quoting Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162, 171-72, 125 S. Ct. 2410, 2418
(2005)), cert. denied.
[9] Batson adopted a procedure for “ferreting out discrimination in the exercise of
peremptory challenges.” Davis v. Ayala, __ U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 2187, 2208
(2015).
First, the party contesting the peremptory challenge must make a
prima facie showing of discrimination on the basis of race.
Second, after the contesting party makes a prima facie showing
of discrimination, the burden shifts to the party exercising its
peremptory challenge to present a race-neutral explanation for
using the challenge. Third, if a race-neutral explanation is
proffered, the trial court must then decide whether the challenger
has carried its burden of proving purposeful discrimination.
Killebrew v. State, 925 N.E.2d 399, 401 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (citation omitted),
trans. denied.
[T]his procedure places great responsibility in the hands of the
trial judge, who is in the best position to determine whether a
peremptory challenge is based on an impermissible factor. This
is a difficult determination because of the nature of peremptory
challenges: They are often based on subtle impressions and
intangible factors.
Davis, 135 S. Ct. at 2208. “[T]he trial court’s decision as to whether a
peremptory challenge was discriminatory is given ‘great deference’ on appeal
and will be set aside only if found to be clearly erroneous.” Collier v. State, 959
N.E.2d 326, 329 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (quoting Killebrew, 925 N.E.2d at 401).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 71A03-1506-CR-544 | March 24, 2016 Page 5 of 11
[10] The following is the conversation related to striking Ms. V.:
THE COURT: As far as cause challenges are concerned,
State has moved to strike number 13 for cause, Ms. [V.]
What’s the reason for that?
[THE STATE]: Your Honor, we believe because of the
timing, and if we go into tomorrow, we have a concern.
THE COURT: It will be done today.
[THE STATE]: Okay.
THE COURT: So do you want her for cause or not?
[THE STATE]: If it will be done today, then I would use her
as a peremptory.
THE COURT: You want to use her with a peremptory?
[THE STATE]: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay.
[THE DEFENSE]: May I respond with regard to Ms. [V]?
I mean, I guess my concern … I would raise a Batson issue.
THE COURT: There is no Batson issue for Hispanics, it’s
only race and gender. That’s what the Supreme Court has
determined . . . .
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 71A03-1506-CR-544 | March 24, 2016 Page 6 of 11
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, I believe my issue
is that she’s the sole juror on the panel that is or what appears to
be Hispanic.
THE COURT: That’s not a suspect class under the
Constitution. And so it doesn’t rise to a Batson issue . . . you
could say the same about anybody that has any other national
origin. It does not rise to that level.
As far as I know, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined . . .
and I don’t think there is any Indiana cases on point, but that is
essentially the old suspect class designation from the ‘60’s, ‘70’s
and ‘80’s that dealt with race, white or black; gender, male or
female.
Okay?
So we’re not there yet . . . .
Tr. pp. 77-78 (first and third ellipses in original).
[11] We observe that “[s]ince the Batson decision prohibiting race-based peremptory
challenges, the United States Supreme Court has added challenges based upon
ethnicity . . . . In Hernandez [v. New York], the challenge was made to Latino
jurors, and the Supreme Court analyzed the discriminatory aspects of the case
in terms of a race-based challenge.” Pryor v. Hoskins, 774 N.E.2d 943, 954 n.5
(Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (citing Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 111 S. Ct.
1859 (1991)).2
2
The State does not challenge the applicability of Batson in this case. See Appellee’s Br. p. 13.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 71A03-1506-CR-544 | March 24, 2016 Page 7 of 11
[12] This case is similar to Ashabraner v. Bowers, 753 N.E.2d 662 (Ind. 2001), in
which our supreme court reversed a jury verdict on Batson grounds. In that
case, the plaintiff made a Batson objection, but the trial court failed to analyze
that objection as required by Batson. See id.at 665-66. Our supreme court
concluded that failure indicated “the court did not follow Batson even though it
applies to civil cases.” Id. at 666. On appeal, this Court conducted its own
Batson analysis without relying on the trial court’s misunderstanding of the law.
See id. We concluded the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case of
discrimination and affirmed the trial court. See id. Our supreme court held that
that conclusion, which we reached after an incomplete Batson analysis, was
error:
The trial court and the Court of Appeals did not reach the issue
of whether [the defendant] could offer a race neutral explanation.
Because the trial court applied the wrong standard and the Court
of Appeals held that [the plaintiff] had not made out a prima
facie case, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
Id. at 667-68.
[13] The colloquy related to Villaruel’s Batson objection “demonstrates that the trial
court did not adhere fully to the principles enunciated in Batson and subsequent
cases.” Id. at 666. Like the trial court in Ashabraner, the trial court did not
analyze Villaruel's objection to the peremptory challenge and did not follow
Batson, even though it applies to challenges based on ethnicity. See id. at 666.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 71A03-1506-CR-544 | March 24, 2016 Page 8 of 11
[14] We acknowledge that Ashabraner is a civil case and this is a criminal case.
However, Batson applies equally to criminal3 and civil cases, and this case
cannot be distinguished from Ashabraner on that ground. See Edmonson v.
Leesville Concrete Co., Inc. 500 U.S. 614, 111 S. Ct. 2077 (1991) (holding “in a
civil trial exclusion on account of race violates a prospective juror’s equal
protection rights”). Therefore, Ashabraner’s mandate that the trial court, and
not an appellate court, must conduct a complete Batson analysis when a litigant
objects to a peremptory strike on Batson grounds, applies squarely in this
criminal case. Likewise, it is clear the Batson analysis must be conducted when
a litigant challenges a peremptory strike of a Hispanic juror. See Hernandez, 500
U.S. 352, 111 S. Ct. 395. The trial court did not perform the requisite Batson
analysis related to the State’s use of a peremptory strike of Ms. V., a Hispanic
juror, and we may not conduct the analysis ourselves. Instead, we reverse
Villaruel’s convictions.
II. Sufficiency of the Evidence
[15] “When, as here, reversal is required because of trial error, and a defendant
presents a claim of insufficient evidence, an acquittal instead of a new trial is
required if the proof of guilt is insufficient in light of the evidence presented at
trial.” Miller v. State, 916 N.E.2d 193, 198 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (citation
omitted), trans. denied. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence,
3
In light of the liberty interest at stake in this criminal case, the protections afforded by Batson may be of
heightened importance in order to safeguard the defendant’s and juror’s rights and the public’s confidence in
our jury system.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 71A03-1506-CR-544 | March 24, 2016 Page 9 of 11
“appellate courts must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable
inferences supporting the verdict.” Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind.
2007) (quotations omitted) (citation omitted) (emphasis omitted). It is the fact
finder’s role to assess the credibility of the witnesses and weigh the evidence.
Id. Appellate courts must consider conflicting evidence most favorably to the
trial court’s ruling and affirm the conviction unless “no reasonable fact-finder
could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.(quotations omitted) (citation omitted).
[16] Villaruel contends the evidence was not sufficient to support his intimidation
conviction.4 Under the version of Indiana Code Section 35-42-2-1 (b)(1) in
effect at the time Villaruel committed this offense, the State was required to
prove he communicated a threat to a law enforcement officer with the intent
that the officer be placed in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act in order to
convict him of intimidation as a Class D felony. Villaruel contends only that
the evidence is not sufficient to prove he knowingly committed this offense.
Specifically, he argues he did not recall or had little recall of threatening Officer
Cummins. He also argues he was intoxicated at the time. Finally, he argues,
“his statements were angry rants and abusive language that should not have
been taken seriously, that at the time he engaged in the conduct and
communications complained of, he was not aware of a high probability he was
doing so . . . .” Appellant’s Br. p. 16. However, voluntary intoxication is not a
4
Villaruel does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence with regard to his battery conviction.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 71A03-1506-CR-544 | March 24, 2016 Page 10 of 11
defense in a criminal prosecution. Manzano v. State, 12 N.E.3d 321, 327 n.2
(Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied; see also Berry v. State, 969 N.E.2d 35, 38 (Ind.
2012).
[17] Officer Cummins testified Villaruel “progressively got more belligerent.” Tr. p.
161. His statements escalated from name calling to relatively minor threats of
physical harm and then to threats to Officer Cummins’s life and, finally, to the
lives of Officer Cummins’s family. Villaruel’s threats were specific with regard
to how he would encounter Officer Cummins and his family in order to carry
out the threats. From this evidence a reasonable fact finder could find Villaruel
intended to place Officer Cummins in fear for his lawful acts. The evidence is
thus sufficient to support Villaruel’s conviction, and double jeopardy presents
no bar to retrial on this charge. See Slayton v. State, 755 N.E.2d 232, 237 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2001).
Conclusion
[18] The trial court erred by not undertaking the required Batson analysis. Double
jeopardy does not bar the State from retrying Villaruel. We reverse and remand
for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Robb, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 71A03-1506-CR-544 | March 24, 2016 Page 11 of 11