Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A man convicted of murder failed to convince the Court of Appeals of Indiana that the absence of a full competency hearing and the admission of certain evidence undermined his conviction.
In November 2021, Jake Brunette murdered Andy Conley with a knife in Elkhart County.
Johnnie Davidson and Kelly Wager witnessed Brunette attacking Conley and called law enforcement. Brunette was subsequently charged with murder.
In January 2022, Brunette’s counsel filed a motion to determine his competency to stand trial.
The Elkhart Circuit Court appointed two psychiatrists, who came to opposite conclusions.
The court then appointed a third psychiatrist, who concluded Brunette was competent.
The court held a hearing after receiving the third report and asked Brunette’s trial counsel if he wanted to have a full competency hearing. His counsel stated that they did not, and the matter was set for trial.
At the jury trial, Davidson and Wagner both testified to witnessing Brunette murder Conley.
Also, the trial court admitted into evidence several photographs of Conley’s wounds. That included graphic photos of Conley’s neck, which were admitted over Brunette’s objections.
Part of Brunette’s objection to the admission of those photographs was that they were “cumulative” to several other admitted photographs.
The jury found Brunette guilty of Conley’s murder.
He appealed, first arguing that the trial court erred when it didn’t hold a full evidentiary hearing to determine his competency.
But the appellate court determined the invited error doctrine applies to Brunette’s case and “precludes appellate review of Brunette’s assertion that he was entitled to a full competency hearing.”
“After the State noted that it was ready to proceed to trial, the court confirmed with Brunette’s counsel that he wished to proceed without a full evidentiary hearing on the question of Brunette’s competency, and Brunette’s counsel again affirmatively informed the court that such a hearing was not necessary,” Judge Paul Mathias wrote. “The court then relied on the affirmative assertions of Brunette’s counsel and set the matter for trial. This record demonstrates that any error in the failure to hold a full evidentiary hearing to determine Brunette’s competency to stand trial was invited by Brunette.
“… While the better practice — and what the statute requires — is for the trial court itself to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to question a defendant’s competency, on this record we are obliged to conclude that any error in the trial court’s failure to do so was invited by Brunette,” Mathias added. “Accordingly, appellate review on this issue is not available.”
Brunette also challenged the admission of the photos on appeal, but the COA again rejected his argument.
“We conclude that these three exhibits were merely cumulative to other evidence before the jury,” Mathias concluded. “Accordingly, there is no reversible error on this issue.”
Judges Elizabeth Tavitas and Peter Foley concurred in Jake Brunette v. State of Indiana, 23A-CR-693.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.