Campbell v. State
Indiana Supreme Court
19 N.E.3d 271 (2014)
- Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD
Facts
Wayne Campbell (defendant) had a property dispute with his neighbors, Jean and Alva Kincaid. Campbell entered the Kincaids’ home, beat the couple, and left them with serious injuries. Campbell was charged with attempted murder, burglary, and battery, among other claims. During jury deliberations, the jury asked for the court’s definition of intent. Campbell’s counsel asked the court to provide the standard jury instruction on intent that was used by the state (plaintiff). The instruction defined intent as engaging in conduct with a conscious objective to do so. Additionally, if a person was charged with intentionally causing the result of conduct, the person had to have a conscious objective to engage in the conduct and also to cause the result. Campbell’s counsel did not object to the instruction. Campbell was convicted and appealed his conviction years later to the Indiana Supreme Court, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. Campbell argued that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the intent definition. Campbell argued that the jury instruction relieved the state of its burden to prove intent for both the act and the result and should have reiterated the burden of proof for both issues independently.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rucker, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
