Spengler v. State

987 N.E.2d 549

Tammy SPENGLER, Appellant–Defendant,

v.STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff.

No. 88A01–1207–CR–318.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

May 16, 2013.

Appeal from the Washington Circuit Court; The Honorable Larry W. Medlock, Judge; Cause No. 88C01–1106–MR–419.

David A. Smith, McIntyre & Smith, Bedford, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, George P. Sherman, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION—NOT FOR PUBLICATION

BRADFORD, Judge.

At some point prior to June 22, 2011, Tammy Spengler and her co-defendant, Timothy Orman, killed her co-defendant's father and uncle and left their bodies to rot in a shed on the property where the killings took place. Approximately one-and-a-half to two weeks later, Spengler admitted to her mother that she had killed two people. At her mother's suggestion, Spengler turned herself into the police, admitted to the killings, and gave police information that led to the discovery of the victims' decomposing bodies. Following trial, Spengler was convicted of murder, aiding in murder, and invasion of property.

On appeal, Spengler contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting certain conversations conducted over jailhouse phone lines. Specifically, Spengler claims that her comments made during a conversation between Spengler and her co-defendant amounted to an involuntary statement made during a custodial interrogation and that the admission of a recording of certain conversations between Spengler and her mother was unfairly prejudicial. Spengler also contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain her convictions and that her 120–year sentence is inappropriate. Concluding that the trial court acted within its discretion in admitting the recordings of Spengler's conversations with her co-defendant and her mother, that the evidence is sufficient to sustain Spengler's convictions, and that Spengler's sentence is not inappropriate, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 22, 2011, Spengler called her mother, Tammy Thacker, and asked her mother to pick her up at a service station in Floyds Knobs. While Thacker and Spengler were driving back toward Thacker's home in Palmyra, Spengler told Thacker that she had killed “Tim and Bum” a few weeks ago. Tr. Vol. I, p. 142. “Tim and Bum” referred to Timothy M. Orman and Roy Orman, her boyfriend Timothy Orman's ¹ father and uncle, respectively. Spengler told Thacker that she and her boyfriend had placed the bodies in a shed on the property where the killings took place. At Thacker's suggestion, Spengler agreed to notify police about the killings and turn herself in. Thacker and Spengler stopped at a gas station in Palmyra, from where Spengler called the police.

After Spengler told the 911 dispatcher that she had killed two people and expressed a desire to turn herself in, Spengler was met at the gas station by multiple police officers. Spengler told the officers that she “killed two people about a week and a half ago[,]” Tr. Vol. I, p. 158, and told the officers where the killings took place as well as the location of the bodies. Spengler told the officers that she placed the bodies in a blue shed and that she did not “know if [she] locked it or not.” Tr. Vol. I, p. 175. Spengler was then placed in the back of a police vehicle and read her Miranda² rights.

Other officers were dispatched to the address given by Spengler as the location of the killings. These officers were subsequently able to locate the victims' bodies in a shed on the property. The victims' bodies were clothed, wrapped in either a sheet or blanket, wrapped in plastic, and stacked one on top of the other. There was a strong stench from the decomposing bodies emanating from the shed. The shed had become overrun by thousands of flies and also had a layer of maggot larva or maggot pupae approximately an inch deep on the floor.

Upon investigating the residence on the property, detectives found numerous guns and large amounts of ammunition. Detectives also found evidence in the form of blood stains, bloody handprints, pieces of flesh, skull fragments, spent shell casings, a black plastic bag with bloody clothing inside, and a pair of sandals. Detectives also noticed that someone had made an attempt to clean up the scene. A hole in an aluminum screen door which appeared to be made by a shotgun blast was covered with tape. There was another hole on the door that seemed to be made by a piece of solid projectile. In addition, interior locks and padlocks appeared to have been forced open.

Investigators recovered lead projectiles from Timothy M. Orman's body, and birdshot ³ was recovered from both Timothy M. Orman's and Roy Orman's bodies. Upon examining the victims' bodies, investigators found that Timothy M. Orman's head was no longer attached to his body and that it was “markedly fragmented due to trauma.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 239. Two large pieces of lead projectile were recovered from Timothy M. Orman's arm, a projectile fragment was recovered from his head, and birdshot was found in his chest, hand, and head. In addition, Timothy M. Orman's skull displayed fractures associated with a gunshot wound to the jaw. His skull was in multiple pieces, and certain sections of his skull were never recovered.

Investigators also found that Roy Orman was shot in the face and torso with birdshot. Investigators concluded that as many as eight shots could have been fired at the victims. Further investigation revealed that Roy Orman had previously obtained a protective order prohibiting Spengler from being around him or his residence.

On June 24, 2011, the State charged Spengler with two counts of murder, a felony; ⁴ two counts of aiding murder, a felony; ⁵ and Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.⁶ On February 7, 2012, the State moved to amend the charging information and to add a firearm sentencing enhancement. The trial court subsequently granted the State's motions.

Spengler's trial was held on May 9–17, 2012, after which the jury found her guilty of the murder of Timothy M. Orman, aiding in the murders of both Timoth M. Orman and Roy Orman, and invasion of privacy. The trial court conducted a sentencing hearing on June 20, 2012. During this hearing, the trial court merged the aiding in the murder of Timothy M. Orman conviction into the murder conviction and sentenced Spengler to consecutive terms of sixty years each for the murder of Timothy M. Orman and aiding in the murder of Roy Orman. The trial court also sentenced Spengler to a consecutive term of one year for the invasion of privacy conviction, for an aggregate term of one hundred twenty one years. This appeal follows.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

On appeal, Spengler contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting certain evidence, that the evidence presented by the State at trial was insufficient to sustain her convictions, and that her sentence is inappropriate.

I. Admission of Evidence

Spengler contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting certain evidence at trial. Specifically, Spengler claims that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting a recording of a conversation she had with her co-defendant while both were incarcerated prior to trial. Spengler also claims that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting a recording of certain phone conversations that took place between Spengler and her mother.

The evidentiary rulings of a trial court are afforded great deference. Norton v. State, 785 N.E.2d 625, 629 (Ind.Ct.App.2003). We review a trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of discretion. Southern v. State, 878 N.E.2d 315, 321 (Ind.Ct.App.2007), trans. denied (2008). An abuse of discretion occurs where the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. We will reverse only when a manifest abuse of discretion denies the defendant a fair trial. Norton, 785 N.E.2d at 629.

Marshall v. State, 893 N.E.2d 1170, 1174 (Ind.Ct.App.2008). “Moreover, we will sustain the trial court if it can be done on any legal ground apparent in the record.” Jester v. State, 724 N.E .2d 235, 240 (Ind.2000).

A. Spengler's Conversation with Her Co–Defendant

On appeal, Spengler claims that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting a recording of a conversation that took place between Spengler and her co-defendant while both were incarcerated prior to trial. In challenging the admissibility of the recording of this conversation, Spengler does not claim that she had any expectation of privacy or that any such right was violated when jail officials recorded the conversation between Spengler and her co-defendant. Instead, Spengler argues that the comments she made during the conversation qualified as an involuntary statement given during a custodial interrogation. In support of this argument, Spengler asserts that her co-defendant qualified as a government agent because police arranged for the conversation to take place after her co-defendant offered to make a statement to police about the murders if he were first permitted to speak to Spengler.

“The Sixth Amendment guarantees an accused the right to counsel at all critical stages of prosecution.” Dodson v. State, 502 N .E.2d 1333, 1336 (Ind.1987) (citing United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967)). The Sixth Amendment is not violated when a passive listener merely collects, but does not induce, incriminating statements. Hobbs v. State, 548 N.E.2d 164, 167 (Ind.1990). However, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel “is violated when the government intentionally creates a situation likely to induce an incriminating statement from a charged defendant in the absence of counsel.” Dodson, 502 N.E.2d at 1336 (citing Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964)). This can include instances where police promise leniency or hire an inmate to act...