Jerry E Russell, Sr. v. State of Indiana

FILED

Jun 03 2024, 1:17 pm

CLERK

Indiana Supreme Court

Court of Appeals

and Tax Court

IN THE

Indiana Supreme Court

Supreme Court Case No. 21S‐LW‐451

Jerry E. Russell, Sr.,

Appellant/Defendant,

–v–

State of Indiana,

Appellee/Plaintiff.

Argued: October 31, 2023 | Decided: June 3, 2024

Appeal from the Greene Superior Court

No. 28D01‐9810‐CF‐624

The Honorable Marc R. Kellams, Special Judge

Opinion by Justice Molter

Chief Justice Rush and Justices Massa and Slaughter concur.

Justice Goff dissents with separate opinion.

Molter, Justice.

Twenty‐five years ago, a jury convicted Jerry E. Russell Sr. of

murdering Pamela Foddrill and committing other heinous crimes. He was

sentenced to life imprisonment without parole (“LWOP”) for the murder

conviction, and he received consecutive sentences of fifty years for

conspiracy to commit murder, fifty years for criminal deviate conduct,

and twenty years for criminal confinement. On his direct appeal, we

affirmed Russell’s convictions for murder and conspiracy to commit

murder, and we affirmed his LWOP sentence. But we modified the

judgment and sentences for the criminal confinement and criminal deviate

conduct convictions with the result that Russell was sentenced to LWOP

plus seventy‐three years.

Russell then filed a Petition for Post‐Conviction Relief (“PCR”) in

March 2003. A little over sixteen years later, in September 2019, he agreed

with the State to dismiss his petition with prejudice in exchange for

resentencing. Then, after receiving extensive evidentiary submissions and

holding a resentencing hearing spanning three days, the resentencing

court entered a detailed Order on Resentencing that sentenced Russell to

LWOP plus seventy‐three years. Russell appealed that order directly to

our Court under Appellate Rule 4(A)(1), and we now affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

I. Factual Background

In 1995, Pamela Foddrill lived in Linton, Indiana, with her mother,

Irene. Foddrill was an intellectually disabled forty‐four‐year‐old woman

who was unmarried and had never dated. Neither Foddrill nor her

mother drove, so the two would walk together to run errands. One place

they visited frequently was the IGA grocery store about three blocks from

their home. On a few occasions, Foddrill walked to the grocery store by

herself.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 2 of 40

During this time, Russell lived in a two‐story house in Foddrill’s

neighborhood. The house had an upstairs bedroom and an attic storage

space. Throughout 1995, Russell was acquainted with Roger Long, John

Redman, and Wanda Hubbell. Redman lived nearby, and there was a

locked shed near his home. Redman and his wife, Plynia Fowler, had

recently divorced, but the two remained in frequent contact. Russell often

saw Foddrill as she was out walking, and he once attempted to speak to

her. Russell began to develop an obsession with Foddrill and spoke to

Redman, Long, and Hubbell about a plan to abduct her.

On August 18, 1995, Foddrill told her mother that she wanted to go to

the grocery store. Irene was not feeling well so she let Foddrill go to the

store by herself. Shortly after Foddrill entered the store, she left because

the store did not have what she was hoping to purchase.

As Foddrill walked home, Fowler approached and began speaking to

her. Meanwhile, Russell and Redman stepped out of a station wagon and

approached Foddrill from behind. The group continued to move toward a

white van parked nearby. Russell and Long then grabbed Foddrill’s arms

and pushed her into the back of the van.

The group took Foddrill to Russell’s house and confined her in the

attic storage space. For a little over a week, they subjected Foddrill to

multiple sexual assaults and physical torment. Russell participated in

abusing Foddrill and raped her multiple times. On at least two occasions,

Hubbell came over to Russell’s house and also abused Foddrill. During

her confinement, Russell fed Foddrill fast food and bathed her using a

basin.

At some point, as Foddrill’s physical condition was deteriorating, the

group agreed they would kill her and dispose of her body. Around

August 30, 1995, Russell and the group severely beat Foddrill with a

baseball bat. Then, Russell went outside of his house to get a knife. Russell

gave this knife to Redman, who used it to stab Foddrill. The group rolled

Foddrill’s body in a rug and put her in Redman’s shed.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 3 of 40

Sometime later, the group removed Foddrill’s body from the shed and

put it into a van. They drove to Lawrenceville, Illinois, and hid Foddrill’s

body in a wooded area. The group then returned to Linton, Indiana.

Foddrill’s body was found on December 2, 1995. Long was arrested

first on October 8, 1997. Redman was arrested on May 24, 1998. And after

Hubbell and another individual linked Russell to the crime, Russell was

arrested on October 20, 1998. While incarcerated, Russell made multiple

admissions to his fellow inmates and others.

II. Procedural History

The State charged Russell with murder, Class A felony conspiracy to

commit murder, Class B felony criminal confinement, and Class A felony

criminal deviate conduct. The State also sought an LWOP sentence. To

support the LWOP sentencing recommendation, the State charged three

statutory aggravators: (1) Russell murdered Foddrill while committing

criminal deviate conduct; (2) Russell tortured Foddrill; and (3) Foddrill

was a victim of criminal confinement.

Following a trial, a jury found Russell guilty of all four charged

offenses. The jury also found the State proved all three statutory LWOP

aggravators and recommended a sentence of LWOP. The trial court

accepted the jury’s recommendation and imposed a sentence of LWOP

plus 120 years for the non‐murder convictions.

Russell appealed his sentence to this Court, see Ind. Appellate Rule

4(A)(1)(a), raising five issues: (1) spousal privilege, (2) the sufficiency of

the evidence for his criminal confinement conviction, (3) the sufficiency of

the evidence for his deviate sexual conduct conviction, (4) a double

jeopardy claim, and (5) the trial court’s reliance on an improper

aggravator to support his LWOP conviction. We affirmed Russell’s

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 4 of 40

convictions for murder and his LWOP sentence,1 along with his conviction

for conspiracy to commit murder. Russell v. State, 743 N.E.2d 269, 275 (Ind.

2001). However, due to insufficient evidence of certain enhancing

elements, we changed Russell’s criminal confinement conviction from a

Class B felony to a Class D felony and reduced the sentence to three years,

served consecutively. Id. at 272–73. We also changed Russell’s criminal

deviate conduct conviction from a Class A felony to a Class B felony and

imposed a sentence of twenty years, served consecutively. Id. at 273.

Russell was sentenced to fifty years for his conviction to commit murder,

so after his first appeal, his sentence stood at LWOP plus seventy‐three

years. Id. at 271, 275.

In 2003, Russell filed a PCR petition. Between May 2018 and March

2019, Russell amended this petition nine times. In September 2019, Russell

and the State filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss Petition for Post‐Conviction

Relief With Prejudice and Modify Sentence, which reflected their

agreement to dismiss the PCR petition in exchange for a resentencing

hearing. They agreed the resentencing court would consider (1) whether

Russell was statutorily ineligible for an LWOP sentence due to intellectual

disability, (2) whether his convictions violated double jeopardy

protections, and (3) applicable aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

The resentencing court granted this motion on September 16, 2019. The

resentencing hearing took place over three days: September 16 and 20,

2019, and February 28, 2020.

On August 16, 2021, the resentencing court entered its Order on

Resentencing, which sentenced Russell to LWOP plus seventy‐three years.

Russell then filed a motion to correct error, which was deemed denied

after the resentencing court declined to rule on it. Russell has now

appealed his resentencing to this Court. App. R. 4(A)(1)(a).

1In affirming Russell’s LWOP sentence, we held that the trial court’s finding of the “torture”

statutory aggravator was improper because this aggravator was not included in the LWOP

statute at the time Russell committed the crime. Russell v. State, 743 N.E.2d 269, 274–75 (Ind.

2001). However, we also held this was harmless error. Id. at 275.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 5 of 40

Discussion and Decision

Russell identifies nine issues for our review, but the State contends we

lack jurisdiction to consider any of them, either because appellate

jurisdiction rests with the Court of Appeals rather than our Court, or, if

not, then because the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to enter its Order

on Resentencing in the first place. Below, we explain why this Court has

appellate jurisdiction and the Superior Court had jurisdiction to enter its

order, and then we turn to Russell’s appeal issues, concluding none

present reversible error.

I. Jurisdiction

A. Appellate Jurisdiction

Russell appeals the Order on Resentencing directly to our Court,

invoking our jurisdiction under Appellate Rule 4(A)(1)(a). That provision

says, “[t]he Supreme Court shall have mandatory and exclusive

jurisdiction over . . . Criminal Appeals in which a sentence of death or life

imprisonment without parole is imposed.” App. R. 4(A)(1)(a). But the

State argues we lack jurisdiction because the appealed order, titled “Order

on Resentencing,” is really an order denying a request for sentence

modification, and appeals from orders denying a sentence modification go

directly to the Court of Appeals rather than our Court. Wilson v. State, 189

N.E.3d 231, 232 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (reviewing the denial of a sentence

modification); App. R. 4 (providing the bases for Supreme Court

jurisdiction).

To support its argument that the proceedings below were really for

sentence modification, not resentencing, the State points out that Russell’s

sentences were never vacated, and the parties’ joint motion triggering the

proceedings was titled: “Joint Motion to Dismiss Petition for Post‐

Conviction Relief With Prejudice and Modify Sentence.” App. Vol. IV at

112 (emphasis added). But other aspects of the proceedings that the State

flags cut both ways.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 6 of 40

Russell requested a Department of Correction report pursuant to

Indiana Code section 35‐38‐1‐17, which is a statute related to sentence

modifications, but he stated in his request that a “resentencing hearing”

had been scheduled and “[a] progress report from the DOC will be helpful

to the court at the re‐sentencing hearing.” App. Vol. III at 157. The parties

did not proceed as if they were starting from scratch, and Russell went

first and last, consistent with a party shouldering the burden of proof, as

would be expected in a modification proceeding. But as Russell explains, a

sentencing court generally considers the case history. And the hearing was

not just a standard resentencing hearing; it included what is normally a

pre‐trial determination of whether Russell was statutorily ineligible for

LWOP, and he had the burden of proof for that issue. The State also notes

the parties discussed Russell’s presence as optional, which is consistent

with a sentence modification rather than a resentencing because the

defendant has a right to be present at sentencing. But as Russell points

out, a defendant may waive their presence at sentencing, and he filed a

successful Verified Motion to Waive Right to be Present for Re‐sentencing.

For his part, Russell points to numerous indicia of a resentencing

hearing, including the many references to a resentencing hearing in the

joint motion that triggered the proceedings. The motion’s introductory

paragraph and prayer for relief asked the court to “conduct a new

sentencing hearing” and “impose a new sentence.” App. Vol. IV at 112,

113. It explained that “Indiana law permits and encourages prosecutors

and post‐conviction petitioners to resolve PCRs by way of an agreement

that includes a change in the petitioner’s sentence, or a new sentencing

hearing.” Id. at 112. It also said, “Russell does not waive his right to

challenge the new sentence on appeal,” and the State agreed to “a new

sentencing hearing” at which the court would “impose a new sentence.”

Id. at 113. And the court’s Order Granting Joint Motion said the court

would “conduct a new sentencing hearing.” Id. at 114.

Russell’s submissions leading up to the hearing continued to refer to

the “resentencing.” For example, he filed an unopposed “Verified Motion

for Leave to Present Evidence of Residual Doubt at Re‐Sentencing.” Id. at

47. He requested a continuance of the “re‐sentencing hearing.” Id. at 98.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 7 of 40

And he submitted exhibit lists “for the re‐sentencing hearing.” See, e.g., id.

at 43, 45, 103, 108.

The State’s own proposed order referred to the “Re‐sentencing

Testimony of Dr. Keyes,” App. Vol. V at 87. And the court began the

hearing by confirming the State’s understanding that this was a

resentencing:

COURT: Alright so you have agreed to dismiss the Post‐

Conviction Relief Petition with prejudice and we are

submitting the case to the Court for a re‐sentencing is that

right?

MS. JOHNSON: That is correct, your honor.

COURT: And the State concurs, Mr. McIntosh?

STATE: Yes, your honor.

Tr. at 6. The court repeatedly referred to the proceedings as a

resentencing, explaining that “the defendant’s sentence is essentially being

set aside and he is being re‐sentenced.” Id. at 137; see also id. at 243 (“This

isn’t a PCR, this is a sentencing hearing as though it was at the end of trial

that I conducted although I didn’t.”). And the Order on Resentencing

repeatedly refers to the proceedings as a resentencing.

Generally, the substance of a motion governs over its title. Good v.

Clinton Cir. Ct., 503 N.E.2d 1218, 1220 (Ind. 1987). Here, as best we can tell,

the agreement the parties memorialized in their joint motion was for a

resentencing proceeding rather than a sentence modification proceeding.

In the joint motion, throughout the proceedings, and in the Order on

Resentencing, the parties and the lower court repeatedly confirmed their

understanding that the relief the parties agreed to in exchange for Russell

dismissing his PCR petition was a resentencing. Understood in context,

the few references to “modification” seem to refer to the possibility that

the resentencing court could enter a different sentence than the original

revised sentence. And the resentencing court explained that the only

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 8 of 40

reason Russell’s previous sentence was not vacated was because the

resentencing court was imposing the same sentence.

Because the proceedings below were for a resentencing hearing, we

have jurisdiction to review the appealed order under Appellate Rule

4(A)(1).

B. Superior Court Jurisdiction

The State next argues that while treating the proceedings as a

resentencing avoids a defect in appellate jurisdiction, that treatment

reveals a jurisdictional defect in the Superior Court. That is because the

“trial judge generally has no authority over a defendant after sentencing.”

State v. Harper, 8 N.E.3d 694, 696 (Ind. 2014). So, the State argues, since this

was not a sentence modification, and the parties dismissed the PCR

petition, the Superior Court had no remaining jurisdiction to consider a

new sentence.

Again, we disagree. It is undisputed that the resentencing court had

jurisdiction over the PCR petition, that resentencing is a proper PCR

remedy, and that the petition requested a resentencing. We have

encouraged prosecutors and petitioners to agree to PCR remedies instead

of litigating the underlying claims, explaining:

We take judicial notice that Indiana prosecutors and petitioners

for post‐conviction relief do resolve post‐conviction relief

claims on terms that include a sentence different than that

imposed at trial (1) prior to adjudication, and (2) after

adjudication but prior to resolution on appeal. There are sound

policy reasons that our system should permit prosecutors and

petitioners for post‐conviction relief to agree to resolve post‐

conviction relief claims, including facilitating resolution of

meritorious, difficult‐to‐defend, and otherwise complex post‐

conviction issues; making efficient use of limited resources; and

promoting judicial economy. To further these policies, we

affirm the authority of prosecutors and petitioners for post‐

conviction relief to agree to resolve post‐conviction relief claims

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 9 of 40

on terms that include a sentence different than that imposed at

trial; and we affirm the authority of post‐conviction courts to

accept such agreements.

Johnston v. Dobeski, 739 N.E.2d 121, 123 (Ind. 2000) (footnotes omitted),

overruled on other grounds in part and reaffirmed in part by State v. Hernandez,

910 N.E.2d 213, 221 (Ind. 2009) (“We therefore reaffirm our holding in

Johnston that the agreement between the prisoner and the county

prosecutor was valid.”).

That is the approach the parties took here, and their joint motion

specifically cited our guidance in Johnston as a reason for doing so. Rather

than continuing to litigate Russell’s PCR claims, which had been pending

for over fifteen years, the parties agreed to a narrow subset of the relief

Russell sought: he could have a resentencing hearing in which the court

would consider whether he was statutorily ineligible for an LWOP

sentence, whether his convictions violated double jeopardy protections,

and whether the applicable aggravating and mitigating circumstances

warranted a different sentence.

At oral argument in our Court, the State acknowledged resentencing

was an available PCR remedy, and the parties could agree to that remedy.

So, if instead of saying they agreed to dismiss the PCR petition, the parties

had said they were agreeing to grant the petition in part so Russell could

have the hearing that occurred here, the State concedes there would be no

question that the Superior Court had jurisdiction. To be sure, that would

have been the better practice. But it makes no difference for purposes of

jurisdiction that the parties said they agreed to “dismiss” the petition

rather than “grant it in part” because, again, we evaluate the substance of

their agreement rather than the labels they affixed to it. Good, 503 N.E.2d

at 1220. And here they agreed to give Russell some of the relief he sought

(granting the petition in part) through the resentencing hearing in

exchange for him dismissing the remainder of his claims.

Because there is no dispute that the Superior Court had jurisdiction

over the PCR petition, that the petition sought a resentencing, and that it

was proper for the parties to agree to that remedy, the Superior Court’s

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 10 of 40

jurisdiction was secure. Having resolved the jurisdictional questions, we

turn to the merits of Russell’s arguments on appeal.

II. Russell’s Arguments on Appeal

A. Substantive Arguments

Russell’s substantive arguments coalesce into four claims. First, he

argues the resentencing court clearly erred by concluding he was not

intellectually disabled. Second, he argues the resentencing court exceeded

its discretion when finding and weighing mitigating and aggravating

circumstances. Third, he argues that his convictions violate federal double

jeopardy protections. And fourth, he argues his sentence was

inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.

For the reasons we explain below, we reject all these arguments.

1. Intellectual Disability

Russell argues his LWOP sentence is improper because he is

intellectually disabled, and Indiana law prohibits LWOP sentences for the

intellectually disabled. Ind. Code §§ 35‐36‐9‐6, 35‐50‐2‐9(a).2 In Indiana, an

“individual with an intellectual disability” is any “individual who, before

becoming twenty‐two (22) years of age, manifests: (1) significantly

subaverage intellectual functioning; and (2) substantial impairment of

2 The dissenting opinion reasons that because the Indiana legislature provides defendants the

same state law statutory protections for death penalty and LWOP sentences, any LWOP

sentence must also comply with United States Supreme Court precedent applying the Eighth

Amendment to death penalty sentences. Post, at 1–2 (Goff, J., dissenting). That conclusion

doesn’t follow from the premise, however. And Russell acknowledges that current United

States Supreme Court precedent holds that LWOP sentences for the intellectually disabled do

not violate the Eighth Amendment (although he preserves his argument that the Supreme

Court should reconsider its precedent). Appellant’s Br. at 34–35. To be sure, we sometimes

find federal Eighth Amendment precedents analyzing death penalty sentences persuasive in

the LWOP context, see, e.g., Ajabu v. State, 693 N.E.2d 921, 937–38 (Ind. 1998), but they do not

constrain our analysis.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 11 of 40

adaptive behavior; that is documented in a court ordered evaluative

report.” Id. § 35‐36‐9‐2 (quotations omitted). The defendant must prove

both these elements by a preponderance of the evidence. State v.

McManus, 868 N.E.2d 778, 785 (Ind. 2007). And we review a trial court’s

finding of whether the defendant is intellectually disabled for clear error.

Id.

This issue is a close call because Russell introduced Dr. Dennis Keyes’s

expert opinion that Russell is intellectually disabled, the State concedes

Russell’s intellectual function is diminished, and Russell is near the line

for substantial impairment of his adaptive behavior. But when the

evidence presents a close call like this, our analysis turns on the standard

of review. And here, we must affirm the resentencing court’s finding that

Russell did not satisfy his burden to prove intellectual disability because

that finding is supported by evidence in the record, and it is not clearly

erroneous.

The State concedes Russell proved subaverage intellectual function, but

it argues the resentencing court properly concluded Russell did not prove

that his adaptive behavior was substantially impaired. Adaptive behavior

is evaluated by considering “how well an individual deals with everyday

life demands compared to other people with similar educational and

social backgrounds.” Rogers v. State, 698 N.E.2d 1172, 1178 (Ind. 1998),

abrogated on other grounds by Pruitt v. State, 834 N.E.2d 90 (Ind. 2005); see

also Tr. at 24 (Dr. Keyes’s testimony explaining that adaptive behavior

refers to “a person’s ability to mold their own behavior to the

environment they are in”). To establish substantial impairment of

adaptive behavior, the defendant must prove significant limitations in

conceptual, social, and practical adaptive skills that manifested before the

age of twenty‐two. McManus v. Neal, 779 F.3d 634, 651 (7th Cir. 2015);

Pruitt, 834 N.E.2d at 106–07.

Conceptual skills refer to things like “communication, functional

academics[,] and self‐direction.” Tr. at 24. Social skills refer to “how well

the person gets along with other people.” Id. And practical skills refer to

“community use, home living, health and safety[,] and self‐care.” Id. The

defendant’s “adaptive functioning in at least one domain must be

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 12 of 40

sufficiently impaired that ongoing support is needed in order for the

person to perform adequately in one or more life settings,” and “the

deficits must be caused by the person’s intellectual impairment.” Neal, 779

F.3d at 650 (quotations omitted).

Russell introduced expert testimony from Dr. Keyes, a Professor of

Special Education at the College of Charleston. Dr. Keyes testified about

his evaluation of Russell through three adaptive behavior tests. First,

Dr. Keyes testified to the Adaptive Behavior Assessment System (“ABAS‐

II”). Dr. Keyes used the ABAS‐II to assess Russell’s conceptual, social, and

practical skills. Russell gave himself high scores for these skills, putting

him well above the maximum threshold for intellectual disability. But

Dr. Keyes also asked two of Russell’s siblings to score Russell. And they

provided much lower scores that would put Russell in the range for “low

functioning adaptive skills.” Tr. at 27.

Dr. Keyes testified that the scores from Russell’s siblings were more

reliable than Russell’s self‐evaluation. But the resentencing court

disagreed, giving the siblings’ scores little weight because Russell had not

demonstrated their evaluations were reliable, and the siblings “may be

inclined to portray Mr. Russell as less competent than he actually is in an

effort to avoid Mr. Russell being sentenced to life without parole.” App.

Vol. V at 133–34.

Second, Dr. Keyes evaluated Russell using the Independent Living

Scale (“ILS”). The ILS measures memory/orientation, managing money,

managing home and transportation, health and safety, and social

adjustment. A composite score of fifty to seventy on the ILS is required to

find intellectual disability. On this test, Russell’s scores ranged between

sixty‐two to ninety‐six, with a composite score of seventy‐five. The

resentencing court gave greater weight to the ILS because the court

believed the standardized test was “more objective and reliable than the

third‐party observations provided by Mr. Russell’s siblings.” Id. at 134.

Third, Dr. Keyes testified to Russell’s results on the Wide‐Range

Achievement Test (“WRAT”). This test measures spelling, math, and

reading comprehension. Again, Russell’s scores were above the threshold

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 13 of 40

for intellectual disability, and Dr. Keyes described Russell as performing

“reasonably well” on the test. Tr. at 32.

Dr. Keyes thought the ILS and WRAT scores overstated Russell’s

abilities because they reflected the more rigid structure that his prison

environment provided, which was more conducive to developing the

abilities that the ILS and WRAT assess. But the resentencing court found

that “[t]hese primary academic skills are closely related to the ability to

function in daily living activities,” and it considered these scores

“important indicators of [Russell’s] adaptive behaviors.” App. Vol. V at

134.

Finally, the resentencing court engaged in a more open‐ended

evaluation of Russell’s work history and day‐to‐day life. It found that

Russell’s “history indicates his abilities rather than his deficits.” Id. The

court considered the facts that Russell was married before he was

incarcerated, “was employed, worked on his home, and paid his monthly

bills.” Id. Russell “also had a driver’s license, owned vehicles and had

them registered. Furthermore, [Russell] helped care for his two children

while also helping his disabled brother and his blind mother with errands

and household chores.” Id.

Russell contests these facts, arguing he had help with some of these

tasks and that many are not as sophisticated as they appear. He also

argues that many of the activities the State highlighted, and the

resentencing court considered, are not demonstrative of Russell’s true

capacity for adaptive behavior. For example, Russell points out that while

the resentencing court noted Russell worked on his home, the State

concedes Russell’s home was in “poor condition.” Appellee’s Br. at 51.

Also, though the resentencing court found that Russell completed his GED

while incarcerated, he had to take the GED test multiple times before

passing.

But to determine whether findings of fact are clearly erroneous, we do

not reweigh the evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses.

Womack v. Womack, 622 N.E.2d 481, 484 (Ind. 1993). Instead, we consider

only whether the evidence supports reasonable inferences reflected in the

trial court’s findings. Id. “Only where the record contains no facts or

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 14 of 40

inferences supporting the trial court’s findings are the findings clearly

erroneous.” Id. And if the record contains evidence that supports

conflicting inferences, the inferences the trial court drew will prevail. Id.

Though Russell presents colorable rebuttals to the resentencing court’s

factual determinations, the evidence still supports the court’s finding that

he is not intellectually disabled. The resentencing court was permitted to

give more weight to the two adaptive behavior tests reflecting a lack of

adaptive impairment (ILS and WRAT) and to discount the third test’s

(ABAS‐II) reliance on Russell’s siblings based on their incentive to shade

their reporting to Russell’s benefit. Our Court took the same approach in

McManus when we reversed the trial court’s intellectual disability finding,

explaining that the results of a behavioral assessment were “open to

doubt” because the family members who supplied the responses “might

be inclined to portray Mr. McManus as less competent than he might

actually be, in an effort to help him evade the death penalty.” McManus,

868 N.E.2d at 789 (quotations omitted); see also id. (“It seems apparent that

these scores, inconsistent with the rest of the record, were suppressed by

the affection of the relatives who supplied the input.”).

The resentencing court’s analysis of other evidence, like Russell’s living

experience and work history, also tracked our Court’s analysis in

McManus and Rogers. McManus, 868 N.E.2d at 789 (“An adequate adaptive

behavior assessment necessarily considers McManus’ work history and

day‐to‐day life, both of which illustrate his abilities—not deficits.”);

Rogers, 698 N.E.2d at 1180 (affirming the trial court’s finding that the

defendant failed to demonstrate substantially impaired adaptive behavior

because he “was living in the community,” “operating an automobile,”

was living with a partner, “bringing money home,” and was “able to go

where he wanted to go” (quotations omitted)).

While we must defer to the resentencing court’s factual findings, we do

not defer to its legal analysis, and Russell correctly points out that the

resentencing court’s order includes a misstatement about the legal

standard for the adaptive behavior prong. After discussing evidence of

Russell’s adaptive behavior and otherwise conducting the analysis

properly, the court said: “Additionally, Dr. Keyes testified that regardless

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 15 of 40

of Jerry Russell’s low IQ, nothing prohibits him from knowing the

difference between right and wrong; an acceptable standard for determining

adaptive behavior.” App. Vol. V at 134 (emphasis added); see also id. at 138

(stating that “[a]ny intellectual disability [Russell] may have does not

overcome the fact that he knew that what he was doing was wrong”).

This language conflates the adaptive behavior analysis with the

affirmative defense of mental disease or defect. I.C. § 35‐41‐3‐6. A

defendant’s ability to distinguish between right and wrong is relevant to

the mental defect defense but not to the standard for determining

adaptive behavior. Had the court based its conclusion about Russell’s

adaptive behavior on this standard, its finding may have been clearly

erroneous.

But the resentencing court’s misstatement was not the basis for its

adaptive behavior conclusion. Immediately after detailing Russell’s day‐

to‐day adaptive behavior, and immediately before its reference to the

wrong standard, the court said: “These factors show that [Russell]

possesses the adaptive behaviors necessary to handle everyday life,

despite his test scores.” App. Vol. V at 134 (emphasis added). This reflects

that the court’s conclusion—that Russell’s adaptive behavior was not

substantially impaired—was based on the proper standard and its proper

weighing of the evidence.

In sum, the resentencing court’s finding that Russell failed to

demonstrate intellectual disability was not clearly erroneous. The weight

the court assigned to the conflicting evidence was properly within its

discretion, and we will not reevaluate the persuasive weight the court

gave to Russell’s and the State’s arguments. And while the resentencing

court did refer to the wrong standard when discussing Russell’s adaptive

behavior, it ultimately applied the correct standard.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 16 of 40

2. Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances

a. Failure to find mitigators

Next, Russell argues the resentencing court exceeded its discretion by

rejecting several of his proposed mitigating sentencing factors.

We review a sentencing court’s decision about whether to find a

mitigating factor for an abuse of discretion. Carter v. State, 711 N.E.2d 835,

838–39 (Ind. 1999). “An allegation that the trial court failed to identify or

find a mitigating factor requires the defendant to establish that the

mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the

record.” Id. at 838. Sentencing courts are “under no duty to deem

mitigating every factor” advanced “simply because it [was] supported by

some evidence in the record.” Bivins v. State, 642 N.E.2d 928, 952 (Ind.

1994). And “the sentencing judge is not obligated to explain why [they

have] chosen not to make a finding of mitigation . . . . Moreover, the

[sentencing] court is not obligated to credit or weigh the defendant’s

evidence of mitigating circumstances the same way the defendant does.”

Id. (quotations omitted).

Russell claims that the resentencing court declined to adopt three

mitigating factors that the record clearly supports. We address each

below.

i. Intellectual Disability

Intellectual disability can be a mitigating factor at sentencing. See Young

v. State, 696 N.E.2d 386, 391–92 (Ind. 1998) (holding that the trial court

should have considered the defendant’s diminished mental capacity as a

mitigating factor after the trial court concluded the defendant’s

intellectual disability precluded an LWOP sentence). Russell recycles his

earlier argument that he is ineligible for an LWOP sentence because he is

intellectually disabled to support his alternative conclusion that the

resentencing court “abused its discretion by failing to find that Russell’s

intellectual disability was a mitigator.” Appellant’s Br. at 67. The

resentencing court acknowledged Russell suffers from significantly

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 17 of 40

subaverage intellectual functioning but found that evidence of his

adaptive behavior to be “debatable.” App. Vol. V at 136. The court

therefore assigned “minimal weight” to Russell’s intellectual limitations.

Id.

Deference to a sentencing court’s decision on whether to find a

mitigator is greatest when the evidence supporting that mitigator is

disputable. Hammons v. State, 493 N.E.2d 1250, 1254 (Ind. 1986). Because

Russell’s intellectual disability is debatable, the resentencing court did not

exceed its discretion by assigning minimal weight to that consideration.

ii. Residual Doubt

“Residual doubt” refers to the notion that “even when a jury finds a

defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, there still may be a measure

or residuum of doubt about the defendant’s guilt.” Miller v. State, 702

N.E.2d 1053, 1069 (Ind. 1998). Russell argues the resentencing court

exceeded its discretion by concluding “[t]here was insufficient residual

doubt to modify the Defendant’s original sentence.” App. Vol. V at 140.

The State disputes that residual doubt is a legitimate sentencing mitigator,

and it argues that even if residual doubt is a legitimate mitigator, the

resentencing court did not err by rejecting it here.

To support his argument that residual doubt “is a non‐statutory

mitigator for LWOP and the death penalty,” Appellant’s Br. at 69, Russell

cites three cases—two from our Court and one from the United States

Supreme Court: Overstreet v. State, 783 N.E.2d 1140 (Ind. 2003), Dumas v.

State, 803 N.E.2d 1113 (Ind. 2004), and Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162

(1986).

As for our Court’s prior decisions, Overstreet’s residual doubt

discussion was limited to clarifying that capital defendants do not have a

constitutional right to a residual doubt jury instruction and

acknowledging that the sentencing court gave little weight to the

defendant’s residual doubt argument. 783 N.E.2d at 1163, 1167. In Dumas,

the defendant failed to make a residual doubt argument, and our Court

simply held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 18 of 40

declined to find residual doubt as a mitigator. 803 N.E.2d at 1123–24. Our

Court has never decided one way or the other whether residual doubt is a

proper mitigator.

As for the United States Supreme Court, its Lockhart residual doubt

discussion was in the context of explaining that one of Arkansas’s claimed

interests in using unitary juries for capital cases (i.e., using the same jury

to decide guilt and sentencing) was that “the defendant might benefit at

the sentencing phase of the trial from the jury’s ‘residual doubts’ about the

evidence presented at the guilt phase.” 476 U.S. at 181. That Court’s

subsequent opinions explicitly disclaim ever holding that defendants

“have an Eighth Amendment right to present ‘residual doubt’ evidence at

sentencing.” Abdul‐Kabir v. Quarterman, 550 U.S. 233, 250–51 (2007).3 And

many members of that Court have expressed either their view that there is

no constitutional right to argue residual doubt as a mitigating factor, or

their skepticism that there is such a right,4 although some justices have

3See also Oregon v. Guzek, 546 U.S. 517, 525 (2006) (explaining that “this Court’s previous cases

had not interpreted the Eighth Amendment as providing a capital defendant the right to

introduce at sentencing evidence designed to cast ‘residual doubt’ on his guilt of the basic

crime of conviction.” (emphasis in original)).

4 Guzek, 546 U.S. at 528 (Scalia & Thomas, JJ., concurring in the judgment) (“In this case, we

have the opportunity to put to rest, once and for all, the mistaken notion that the Eighth

Amendment requires that a convicted capital defendant be given the opportunity, at his

sentencing hearing, to present evidence and argument concerning residual doubts about his

guilt. Although the Court correctly holds that there is no Eighth Amendment violation in this

case, I would follow the Court’s logic to its natural conclusion and reject all Eighth

Amendment residual‐doubt claims.”); Franklin v. Lynaugh, 487 U.S. 164, 174–75 (1988)

(plurality of Rehnquist, C.J., and White, Scalia, and Kennedy, JJ.) (“This Court’s prior

decisions, as we understand them, fail to recognize a constitutional right to have such doubts

considered as a mitigating factor . . . . In sum, even if petitioner had some constitutional right

to seek jury consideration of ‘residual doubts’ about his guilt during his sentencing hearing—

a questionable proposition—the rejection of petitioner’s proffered jury instructions did not

impair this ‘right.’”); id. at 187 (O’Connor & Blackmun, JJ., concurring in the judgment) (“Our

cases do not support the proposition that a defendant who has been found to be guilty of a

capital crime beyond a reasonable doubt has a constitutional right to reconsideration by the

sentencing body of lingering doubts about his guilt.”).

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 19 of 40

disagreed.5 Courts around the country are divided on whether residual

doubt is a proper mitigator, and, if it is, what limits are placed on its

consideration. See, e.g., Com. v. Fisher, 813 A.2d 761, 776–77 (Pa. 2002)

(Saylor, J., concurring) (collecting authority).

We decline to resolve those questions here because, regardless of the

answers, the resentencing court did not exceed its discretion. It permitted

Russell to argue residual doubt at the hearing, and he did so by attacking

the credibility of key witnesses who testified against him at trial as well as

the plausibility of their claims; pointing to a lack of physical evidence

linking him to Foddrill’s murder; and cataloging his activities during

Foddrill’s confinement that he argued were inconsistent with what would

be expected of someone housing a kidnap victim. Russell’s counsel argued

that “when all of the relevant evidence is considered it is hard to avoid the

conclusion that [Russell] was wrongfully convicted.” Tr. at 85.

The resentencing court reviewed Russell’s trial transcript, the trial

transcripts for all three co‐defendants, and the previous sentencing court’s

findings. After reviewing all those materials, and the remaining materials

submitted in the resentencing proceedings, the resentencing court did not

find the testimony Russell offered in support of his residual doubt

argument credible. And it was unwilling to second‐guess the jury’s

evaluation of claimed evidentiary gaps and inconsistencies in witnesses’

testimony. The court also considered the fact that Russell “made

incriminating statements to several individuals, some of whom were not

5Burr v. Florida, 474 U.S. 879, 882 (1985) (Marshall & Brennan, JJ., dissenting) (“I have written

before to describe the subjective personal horror that must face a juror who contemplates

sentencing a man to die without being sure of his guilt. But there is an additional point to be

made: that permitting the consideration of lingering doubt at sentencing is objectively a

rational and consistent element of our system of criminal justice. Like postconviction remedies

in light of new evidence, the conscience of the jury serves to protect against irremediable

errors arising in that gray area known as ‘reasonable doubt.’ And when the stakes are life and

death, the Constitution forbids the closure of that safety valve, as surely as it forbids the

preclusion of other considerations suggesting that a convicted defendant should not die.”

(citation omitted)).

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 20 of 40

inmates, including his wife, Sara Russell, his friend, Jerry Mae Saude, and

his first wife, Patricia Criss.” App. Vol. V at 138.

We generally defer to those sorts of credibility determinations and

evidentiary weighing. Loehrlein v. State, 158 N.E.3d 768, 774 (Ind. 2020)

(explaining that “we must rely on our trial court to assess the weight of

the evidence and credibility of the witnesses”). But Russell argues we

should not give that deference here because the resentencing judge was

not the judge who oversaw the trial, so he did not observe the testimony

in person. We disagree because, as the resentencing judge explained, that

makes it even more reasonable to defer to the conclusions of the jury and

the first sentencing judge when deciding whether the evidence at trial

supported a mitigator.

To that point, Russell responds that deferring to the jury and a prior

sentencing judge defeats the purpose of a residual doubt mitigator, which

presupposes a conviction based on a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable

doubt. Even more so here, Russell says, because his residual doubt

argument depends heavily on evidence he did not introduce and

arguments he did not make at his trial. But Russell does not cite any cases

holding that a sentencing judge who did not oversee the trial producing a

conviction exceeds their discretion by deferring to the conclusions of the

jury and prior sentencing judge rather than crediting new evidence and

arguments, including inadmissible evidence like polygraph results.

Nor do we see any basis for such a conclusion. It is one thing to say a

judge who harbors doubt about guilt may factor that into a sentence. It is

quite another to say the judge must credit evidence—even inadmissible

evidence—that has never been tested at trial to reach the conclusion that

the jury may have made a mistake. That is more like a collateral attack on

the conviction in the guise of a sentencing argument, and we conclude the

resentencing court did not exceed its discretion by rejecting it. Put another

way, we are only reviewing whether the resentencing court exercised its

discretion reasonably, and it is not unreasonable to credit a jury’s

conviction that was based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt and to

discredit new evidence and arguments.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 21 of 40

iii. Lesser Participation

The LWOP statute lists mitigating circumstances that are to be

considered before imposing the death penalty or LWOP. I.C. § 35‐50‐2‐

9(c). It is a mitigating circumstance if “[t]he defendant acted under the

substantial domination of another person.” Id. § ‐9(c)(5). And an

individual’s lesser participation in a criminal offense can also be a

mitigating factor at sentencing. See, e.g., Brown v. State, 720 N.E.2d 1157,

1160 (Ind. 1999) (explaining that “in light of his youth and role as a

follower . . . we conclude that his sentences for murder and conspiracy

should be served concurrently rather than consecutively”).

But these mitigators do not apply simply because others have even

greater culpability for the crime than the defendant. For example, in

Sensback v. State, the defendant and her fiancé went to the house of the

defendant’s seventy‐one‐year‐old step‐great‐aunt. 720 N.E.2d 1160, 1162

(Ind. 1999). There, the defendant’s fiancé pepper sprayed the aunt,

dragged her through the kitchen, and threw her down the basement steps.

Id. The defendant did not deliver the killing blow to the victim (a strike

with a hammer), but “chose the victim . . . , conceived of the plan to rob

her, provided the car to get to the house, gained entry by pretending to

come for a visit, was present in the house . . . , acted as [a] look‐out . . . ,

and completed the robbery” while the victim was being killed. Id. at 1164.

We found that “[i]n light of the magnitude of [the defendant’s] other

involvement, the fact that she did not actually wield the hammer [was]

not enough to be considered a significant mitigating factor.” Id.

Here, Russell argues the resentencing court exceeded its discretion

when it declined to find mitigating that Russell “acted under the

substantial domination of Redman and Long, and he was a lesser

participant.” Appellant’s Br. at 97–98. He points to the State’s concession

at trial that Russell did not deliver the killing blow to Foddrill. But the

State counters that “the record demonstrates that Russell was a major

participant in the planning, abduction, rape, and murder of [Foddrill].”

Appellee’s Br. at 94.

Russell does not point to any evidence of his substantial domination by

Redman and Long or of his lesser participation in Foddrill’s murder.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 22 of 40

Instead, he merely generalizes that “[l]ike most intellectually disabled

individuals, he is a follower,” “is easily influenced and talked into things,”

and is “unusually vulnerable to negative influences.” Appellant’s Br. at 98.

He also relies on an affidavit from his sister in which she reported Russell

was afraid of Redman and Long. Id. at 99.

But as the State points out, the record contains substantial evidence that

Russell had a leading role in the crime. His claims of love for Foddrill led

to the plot to abduct her; he helped abduct Foddrill by grabbing her and

forcing her into a van; he sexually assaulted Foddrill multiple times; he

retrieved the knife which he knew would be the murder weapon; and he

helped dispose of Foddrill’s body in Illinois.

Russell’s participation is closely analogous to the defendant’s in

Sensback. Though he did not deliver the killing blow, Russell was

intricately involved in every stage of the criminal conduct. The

resentencing court thus did not exceed its discretion when it refused to

find substantial domination or lesser participation as mitigating factors.

In sum, Russell has failed to demonstrate that the record clearly

supports intellectual disability, residual doubt, or substantial

domination/lesser participation. The resentencing court acted within its

discretion when it declined to find these factors as mitigating to Russell’s

sentence.

b. Aggravating Factors

Russell also contends the resentencing court exceeded its discretion by

relying on aggravators the record does not support and assigning undue

weight to aggravators regarding his non‐murder convictions. Because the

offenses occurred before 2005, the resentencing court was required to

“properly weigh[ ]” aggravators and mitigators, Jackson v. State, 728

N.E.2d 147, 155 (Ind. 2000), but “the appropriateness of the sentence as a

whole is entitled to great deference and will be set aside only on a

showing of a manifest abuse of discretion,” White v. State, 847 N.E.2d 1043,

1045 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 23 of 40

Russell claims the resentencing court relied on two aggravators that the

record does not support. First, Russell points out a typographical error in

the resentencing order regarding his prior conviction for child molesting.6

The resentencing order lists Russell’s conviction as a Class B felony, but it

was a Class C felony. Regardless of whether the felony was a Class B or

Class C level, the resentencing court appropriately considered it as a

“significant conviction” when reviewing Russell’s criminal history. App.

Vol. V at 135.

Second, Russell claims the resentencing court “found that [he] sexually

violated Foddrill’s body after she was killed” as an additional aggravator.

Appellant’s Br. at 114. Though Russell persuasively argues this fact was

not supported by the record, he fails to show that the resentencing court

considered it as an aggravator. The only three aggravators the

resentencing court considered were Russell’s criminal history, Foddrill’s

mental status, and Russell’s probationary status. The finding that Russell

violated Foddrill’s body was not made by the resentencing court and only

appeared in the court’s order when it recited the findings of Russell’s

original sentencing court.

For the aggravators the resentencing court did consider, Russell claims

the resentencing court exceeded its discretion by assigning undue weight

to Russell’s criminal history and Foddrill’s mental infirmity. Regarding his

criminal history, Russell essentially argues that his offenses are not serious

enough to be given significant weight, and that “the aggravating nature of

[his] conviction[s] is offset to some extent by [his] intellectual disability.”

Id. at 116. But the resentencing court declined to reduce the aggravating

weight of Russell’s criminal history, and it acted within its discretion to do

so. As discussed above, the court did not clearly err when it found that

Russell was not intellectually disabled. And while Russell contests the

gravity of his offenses, see Wooley v. State, 716 N.E.2d 919, 929 n.4 (Ind.

6We are confident this was a mere typographical error in the resentencing order because the

same sentence that contains the error also lists the cause number of Russell’s conviction as

Class C: “The Defendant was also convicted in 1993 for Child Molesting as a class B felony in

cause number 28C01‐9008‐CF‐0043; a significant conviction.” App. Vol. V at 135.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 24 of 40

1999) (explaining that trial courts must consider the gravity, nature, and

number of prior offenses as they relate to the current offense), the

resentencing court was not required to accept these arguments and was

instead free to assign considerable aggravating weight to the convictions,

see White, 847 N.E.2d at 1045 (explaining that the weight a trial court

assigns to mitigating and aggravating factors is entitled to great

deference).

A similar analysis applies to the resentencing court’s decision to assign

aggravating weight to Foddrill’s mental limitations. Russell claims that

the court exceeded its discretion when it “refused to recognize that [he] is

also mentally infirm, to a similar degree as Foddrill.” Appellant’s Br. at

119. But again, the court properly found that Russell was not intellectually

disabled. Thus, it was under no obligation to reduce the aggravating

weight it gave to Foddrill’s mental limitations. Moreover, this aggravator

is an inquiry into the victim’s mental condition. Even if the court did find

Russell to be mentally infirm, the weight of this aggravator would not

necessarily change.

c. Aggravating Factors and Blakely

Russell argues the resentencing court considered improper aggravators

when it imposed sentences above the statutory presumptions for his non‐

murder convictions.

A sentencing court must follow the sentencing scheme in place when

the offense occurred. Robertson v. State, 871 N.E.2d 280, 286 (Ind. 2007).

When Foddrill was murdered in 1995, the sentencing scheme required

judges to sentence convicted defendants to terms of imprisonment within

a statutory range established for each felony. See Anglemyer v. State, 868

N.E.2d 482, 485–86 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g on other grounds. The

sentencing scheme also provided a presumptive sentence for each offense.

Id. at 485. Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, judges were

required to impose the presumptive sentence. Id. at 485–86. Judges were

generally free to find any relevant aggravators and impose above‐

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 25 of 40

presumptive sentences without a jury finding additional facts beyond a

reasonable doubt.7 Id. at 486.

But in 2004, the United States Supreme Court decided Blakely v.

Washington, which held that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial

required that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that

increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory

maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable

doubt.” 542 U.S. 296, 301 (2004) (quotations omitted). So following Blakely,

a judge could increase a sentence based on only: (1) facts that a jury found

beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) the defendant’s prior convictions and

general criminal history, including their probationary status when

committing the offense if that status is reflected in a presentence

investigation report that a probation officer prepared; (3) facts the

defendant admitted; and (4) facts the sentencing judge found after the

defendant, in the course of a guilty plea, waived Apprendi rights and

consented to judicial fact‐finding or the stipulation of certain facts.

Robertson, 871 N.E.2d at 286.

Since Indiana’s then‐effective sentencing scheme required judges to

impose the presumptive sentence for offenses in the absence of any

aggravators or mitigators, the statutory presumptive sentence was the

“maximum sentence” for Blakely purposes. Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 486

(quotations omitted). In 2005, we recognized that Indiana’s sentencing

scheme was not compatible with Blakely. Smylie v. State, 823 N.E.2d 679,

685 (Ind. 2005). And we held that all facts used to increase a defendant’s

sentence above the statutory presumptive level had to fall within one of

the four categories listed above. Id. at 685–86.

7 Specifically, the sentencing scheme required judges to consider five enumerated factors, but

it permitted judges to also consider other aggravators and mitigators and provide its

balancing conclusions. Totten v. State, 486 N.E.2d 519, 523 (Ind. 1985). Following this open‐

ended inquiry, the judge could sentence the defendant to a term of imprisonment below, at, or

above the statutory presumptive term. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 486 (Ind. 2007),

clarified on reh’g on other grounds.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 26 of 40

Sentencing courts must comply with Blakely in all cases, even when the

offense was committed before Blakely was decided. Id. at 690–91. Thus, if a

“pre‐Blakely conviction” is being resentenced in a “post‐Blakely world,” the

sentencing judge must not exceed the Blakely maximum sentence. Kline v.

State, 875 N.E.2d 435, 438 (Ind. 2007). Russell’s resentencing occurred in a

“post‐Blakely world,” so the court recognized that it was required to abide

by this framework. App. Vol. V at 134.

Russell was convicted of three non‐murder offenses: conspiracy to

commit murder, a Class A felony; criminal confinement, a Class D felony;

and criminal deviate conduct, a Class B felony. In 1995, the presumptive

sentence was thirty years imprisonment for Class A felonies, I.C. § 35‐50‐

2‐4 (1995), ten years for Class B felonies, id. § ‐5 (1995), and one and one‐

half years for Class D felonies, id. § ‐7(a) (1995). Along with LWOP for

murder, the resentencing court sentenced Russell to fifty years for

conspiracy to commit murder (twenty years above the presumptive

sentence), twenty years for criminal deviate conduct (ten years above the

presumptive sentence), and three years for criminal confinement (one and

one‐half years above the presumptive sentence). In total, Russell was

sentenced to thirty‐one and one‐half years above the statutory

presumptive sentences for his non‐murder offenses. Thus, the

resentencing court was required to find aggravators that fell within one of

the four categories listed above.

This, Russell claims, is where the resentencing court erred. According to

Russell, the resentencing court relied on nine aggravators to support its

above‐presumptive sentence determination: (1) Russell’s criminal history,

(2) Foddrill’s mental limitations, (3) Russell’s probation status at the time

of the offense, (4) the fact that Russell was a major participant in the

offense, (5) Russell’s participation in planning the offense, (6) the brutality

of the offense, (7) Foddrill’s confinement in Russell’s home, (8) Russell’s

involvement in and presence during the entire sequence of criminal

activity, and (9) Russell’s participation in hiding Foddrill’s body and

sexually violating Foddrill’s body after she had been killed. Since “[n]one

of these factors were submitted to the jury, found beyond a reasonable

doubt by the jury, or admitted by” him, Russell argues the sentencing

order violated Blakely’s requirements. Appellant’s Br. at 112.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 27 of 40

But the resentencing court’s order reveals there is no Blakely violation.

First, it is clear that the resentencing court relied on only three

aggravators: criminal history, Foddrill’s mental limitations, and Russell’s

probationary status. The other “aggravators” Russell lists are not

mentioned under the “Aggravating Circumstances” heading. App. Vol. V

at 135–36.

Instead, they are included under the next heading—“Mitigating

Circumstances”—in the context of discussing Russell’s proposed residual

doubt mitigator, and the resentencing court merely mentioned that they

were the findings of the original sentencing court. Id. at 136–40. There is

nothing to suggest that the resentencing court relied on these findings

from the 1999 sentencing hearing as aggravating factors for the 2021

resentencing order.

Second, the three aggravators the resentencing court did rely on

(aggravators (1)–(3) above) all fit comfortably within categories that

Blakely permits courts to consider when increasing a sentence. Criminal

history is one category, Robertson, 871 N.E.2d at 286, so it was proper for

the resentencing court to consider Russell’s prior convictions and to

conclude his “criminal history [was] an aggravating circumstance.” App.

Vol. V at 135.

It was also proper for the resentencing court to consider Foddrill’s

mental limitations as an aggravator because Russell has repeatedly

admitted to them. The clearest admission of Foddrill’s mental condition

occurred when Russell’s 2019 proposed sentencing order referred to

Foddrill as “mentally infirm.” App. Vol. IV at 233.

Finally, it was proper for the resentencing court to consider Russell’s

probationary status at the time of the offense as an aggravator. Like

Foddrill’s mental status, Russell’s proposed sentencing order admitted

that his probationary status was a proper aggravator. And the

presentencing investigation report, which was prepared by a probation

officer, indicated Russell was on probation at the time of Foddrill’s

murder.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 28 of 40

Because it imposed greater‐than‐presumptive sentences for each of

these convictions, the court was required to find aggravating

circumstances that fell within one of the categories that Blakely permits

courts to consider when increasing a sentence. All three of the court’s

aggravators did, so there is no Blakely violation.

3. Double Jeopardy

Russell next claims that, if his LWOP sentence is affirmed, he “is

entitled to have his sentence for criminal deviate conduct vacated to avoid

a violation of [his] double jeopardy rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution.” Appellant’s Br. at 100.

We review double jeopardy claims de novo. Wadle v. State, 151 N.E.3d 227,

237 (Ind. 2020).

The Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause provides that no

person shall be “subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of

life or limb.” U.S. Const. amend. V. That includes that a person may not

receive “multiple punishments for the same offense.” Laux v. State, 821

N.E.2d 816, 819 (Ind. 2005) (quotations omitted). Russell argues that

because a statutory aggravator supporting his LWOP sentence relies on

the finding that he murdered Foddrill while committing criminal deviate

conduct, he cannot also be separately convicted of the criminal deviate

conduct offense. I.C. § 35‐42‐4‐2 (1995). He points out that in his co‐

defendant Long’s appeal, the State agreed to vacate the sentence for

criminal deviate conduct on this same basis. Long v. State, 743 N.E.2d 253,

259 (Ind. 2001).

We agree with the State that this argument is foreclosed by our

subsequent decision in Laux. There, we held that a separate sentence for

an offense that was also used as an aggravator to support the defendant’s

LWOP or death penalty sentence does not violate the double jeopardy

clause. Laux, 821 N.E.2d at 820–21.

The aggravating circumstances necessary to support the death penalty

or LWOP are not the same as elements of a crime. Id. at 820. “Because the

felonies listed in [the LWOP statute] are not elements of the crime, but

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 29 of 40

rather a list of permissible aggravators, they essentially serve a function

analogous to sentencing enhancements. The statute thus indicates only

what felonies are permissible to consider in imposing life without parole.”

Id. As we explained in Laux, this is consistent with the United States

Supreme Court’s view. See Witte v. United States, 515 U.S. 389, 399 (1995)

(“[U]se of evidence of related criminal conduct to enhance a defendant’s

sentence for a separate crime within the authorized statutory limits does

not constitute punishment for that conduct within the meaning of the

Double Jeopardy Clause.”).

4. Appropriateness of Sentence

Russell further argues that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the

nature of the offense and his character.

The Indiana Constitution authorizes appellate review and revision of a

trial court’s sentencing decision. See Ind. Const. art. 7, §§ 4, 6; Jackson v.

State, 145 N.E.3d 783, 784 (Ind. 2020). “That authority is implemented

through Appellate Rule 7(B), which permits an appellate court to revise a

sentence if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, the

sentence is found to be inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense

and the character of the offender.” Faith v. State, 131 N.E.3d 158, 159 (Ind.

2019).

Our role is to “leaven the outliers,” which means we exercise our

authority only in “exceptional cases.” Id. at 160 (quotations omitted).

Thus, we generally defer to the trial court’s decision, and our goal is to

determine whether the defendant’s sentence is inappropriate, not whether

some other sentence would be more appropriate. Conley v. State, 972

N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 2012). “Such deference should prevail unless

overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature

of the offense (such as accompanied by restraint, regard, and lack of

brutality) and the defendant’s character (such as substantial virtuous traits

or persistent examples of good character).” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d

111, 122 (Ind. 2015).

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 30 of 40

The nature of Russell’s offenses is horrific. He forcibly abducted

Foddrill as she was walking home from the grocery store. Then, he and his

companions confined Foddrill to the attic in Russell’s residence. Russell

raped Foddrill multiple times. Russell participated in the beating that

preceded Foddrill’s murder. When the group finally decided to kill

Foddrill, Russell retrieved the knife they used as the murder weapon.

Finally, after Foddrill had been brutally stabbed to death, Russell helped

hide her body in another state. The abhorrent nature of Russell’s crimes

does not suggest any restraint, regard, or lack of brutality.

As to his character, Russell argues that any intellectual impairment he

may suffer from lowers his criminal culpability and that his good behavior

while incarcerated and religious activity speak to his good character. He

further contends that factors such as his disadvantaged background and

his expression of sorrow should serve as further mitigating factors.

But the resentencing court exercised reasonable discretion when it

assigned little weight to these points. See Houser v. State 823 N.E.2d 693,

700 (Ind. 2005) (upholding LWOP sentence in spite of defendant’s abusive

upbringing). Russell’s criminal history provides a much more convincing

view of his character. Russell was convicted of felony child molesting and

had his parental rights terminated in 1993. He often beat his first wife. He

was convicted of felony unauthorized use of a vehicle and misdemeanor

conversion. He has multiple juvenile adjudications. And as discussed

above, the resentencing court found that Russell was not intellectually

disabled.

In seeking a reduced sentence under Rule 7(B), Russell has the burden

to show “substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good

character.” Stephenson, 29 N.E.3d at 122. Russell has failed to present

compelling evidence to portray the nature of his offense in a positive light

and to evince his good character.

B. Procedural Arguments

Russell’s procedural arguments coalesce around three claims. He

argues the resentencing court (1) failed to afford him due process, (2)

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 31 of 40

exceeded its discretion by excluding his non‐stipulated polygraph, and (3)

failed to supply adequate findings to support the LWOP sentence. Again,

we conclude none of these issues present any reversible error.

1. Due Process

Russell argues the State deprived him of due process by failing to

provide a fair procedure to determine if he was intellectually disabled.

Before an individual is deprived of any liberty interest, they are entitled

to due process of law. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Generally, due process

requires fair notice and an opportunity to be heard. See Mathews v.

Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) (“The fundamental requirement of due

process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a

meaningful manner.” (quotations omitted)). “Due process is a flexible

concept which calls for such procedural protections as the time, place, and

circumstances demand.” Mitchell v. State, 659 N.E.2d 112, 114 (Ind. 1995).

Whether a given procedure satisfies the requirements of due process is a

question of law. Holmes v. Randolph, 610 N.E.2d 839, 844 (Ind. 1993). We

review questions of law de novo. State v. Moss‐Dwyer, 686 N.E.2d 109, 110

(Ind. 1997).

Russell claims the resentencing court’s hearing to determine whether he

is intellectually disabled was procedurally unfair in three ways: (1) the

court did not follow appropriate clinical standards; (2) the court ignored

both historical and record evidence that showed Russell is intellectually

disabled; and (3) when issuing its order, the court’s findings of fact merely

adopted the State’s proposed findings. But Russell’s due process

argument fails for two related reasons.

First, Russell’s argument is not a due process argument at all; it is a

critique of the resentencing court’s analysis, which is a complaint about

substance rather than procedure. The Indiana Code provides a statutory

procedure for determining intellectual disability, and Russell neither

argues the statute violates due process, nor that the resentencing court

failed to follow the statutory procedure. I.C. §§ 35‐36‐9‐1 to ‐7. Instead,

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 32 of 40

Russell’s due process argument just repackages his substantive

arguments, which fail for the reasons we explain throughout this opinion.

Second, Russell never made a due process argument below, so he

forfeited it. Durden v. State, 99 N.E.3d 645, 651 (Ind. 2018) (“A party’s

failure to object to an alleged error at trial results in waiver, also known as

‘procedural default’ or ‘forfeiture.’”). He argues that the reason he did not

object to any resentencing procedure (or lack of procedure) is that the due

process violations were not apparent until he reviewed the resentencing

court’s final order. But that just illustrates the previous point—his

objection really is to the substance of the court’s analysis, not the

procedure it used to give Russell notice and an opportunity to be heard.

We also reject Russell’s argument that his resentencing hearing was

unfair because the court’s findings regarding his alleged intellectual

disability closely mirrored the State’s proposed findings. Lower courts are

faced with an enormous volume of cases and limited resources, and an

effective justice system requires efficiency, so “we do not prohibit the

practice of adopting a party’s proposed findings.” Prowell v. State, 741

N.E.2d 704, 709 (Ind. 2001). But we also acknowledge that, when a court’s

findings are identical to those proposed by the prevailing party, “there is

an inevitable erosion of the confidence of an appellate court that the

findings reflect the considered judgment of the trial court.” Id.

We have no such concerns with the resentencing court’s findings in this

case. The court’s order restructures portions of the State’s proposed

findings regarding intellectual disability and adds its own observation

about Russell’s GED. See Stevens v. State, 770 N.E.2d 739, 762 (Ind. 2002)

(determining that a court’s additions and alterations to proposed findings

showed that “the court carefully considered and purposefully used . . . the

individual findings proposed by the State”). Other portions of the court’s

order differ from the State’s proposed order substantially. For example,

the court added a mitigating factor of childhood neglect that was entirely

absent from the State’s proposed order. The fact that the court’s findings

on the single issue of intellectual disability closely mirror the State’s

proposed findings does not suggest the court failed to perform a sufficient

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 33 of 40

analysis. Instead, it merely suggests that the court was more persuaded by

the State on that issue.

In short, Russell’s due process argument is about substance rather than

process. Even if it were a procedural argument, it would be forfeited. And

the portions of the resentencing order that are adopted from the State’s

proposed findings do not undermine our confidence in the court’s

analysis.

2. The Exclusion of Russell’s Non‐Stipulated

Polygraph Report

Russell argues the resentencing court exceeded its discretion when it

excluded the results of a non‐stipulated polygraph test.

On July 13, 2019, over two decades after Foddrill was murdered,

Russell passed a non‐stipulated polygraph test in which he was asked:

“(1) Did you actively participate in the death of Pamela Foddrill? (2) Did

you see Pamela Foddrill take her last breath? (3) Do you know for sure

where Pamela Foddrill died? [And] (4) [d]id you see Pamela Foddrill get

into that white van at the IGA parking lot?” Ex. Vol. XI at 30. The record

does not reflect Russell’s responses, but the polygraph examiner

concluded Russell’s responses did not indicate deception, and Russell

argues the most reasonable inference from that conclusion is that Russell

responded “no” to each question.

At resentencing, Russell’s counsel moved to admit the polygraph result

into evidence to support his residual doubt argument. The State objected,

acknowledging that the Rules of Evidence did not apply, but arguing the

State was not consulted before the test was administered, and the test was

far too removed from the events surrounding Foddrill’s murder to be

reliable. The resentencing court sustained the State’s objection but did not

say why. The court’s order also does not discuss the excluded polygraph

test.

“The admission or exclusion of evidence rests within the sound

discretion of the trial court, and we review for an abuse of discretion.”

Conley, 972 N.E.2d at 871. A trial court exceeds its discretion “only where

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 34 of 40

the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and

circumstances.” Smith v. State, 754 N.E.2d 502, 504 (Ind. 2001).

In Indiana, polygraph results are generally inadmissible in criminal

trials “[b]ecause of their inherent unreliability combined with their

likelihood of unduly influencing a jury’s decision.” Smith v. State, 547

N.E.2d 817, 820 (Ind. 1989). They are only admissible in criminal trials if

both sides stipulate to their admissibility. Sanchez v. State, 675 N.E.2d 306,

308 (Ind. 1996). But the Rules of Evidence do not apply to sentencing

proceedings. See Ind. Evidence Rule 101(d)(2) (providing that the Indiana

Rules of Evidence do not apply to sentencing proceedings except that the

rules for evidentiary privileges do apply). “The rationale for exempting

certain proceedings, including sentencing, from the rules of evidence is to

provide the trial judge with the widest range of relevant information in

reaching an informed decision.” Dumas, 803 N.E.2d at 1121.

Even if there are circumstances where non‐stipulated polygraph results

are admissible at sentencing hearings, it does not follow that a trial court

exceeds its discretion whenever it sustains an objection to their admission.

Here, the State argued, among other things, that the polygraph was too

remote in time to be reliable. Russell did not offer any argument in

response. The resentencing court did not exceed its discretion by

accepting the State’s unrebutted argument.

The case law Russell cites supports this conclusion. He relies on a case

from the Georgia Supreme Court—Height v. State, 604 S.E.2d 796 (Ga.

2004)—for the proposition that courts have held “that a convicted person’s

polygraph report is admissible at a capital sentencing hearing to show

residual doubt.” Appellant’s Br. at 64. But the Georgia Supreme Court

went on to explain:

We caution, however, that today’s holding should not be

misconstrued as authorizing the admission of polygraph test

results in the penalty phase of every capital case. While the

scope of permissible mitigation evidence is wide, it is not so

extensive as to allow the wholesale admission of all evidence

contended to be mitigating without respect to its reliability.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 35 of 40

When the defendant seeks to introduce unstipulated polygraph test

results as mitigation evidence, the trial court must exercise its

discretion to determine whether those results are sufficiently reliable

to be admitted.

Height, 604 S.E.2d at 798–99 (emphasis added) (cleaned up).

Moreover, even if the resentencing court had exceeded its discretion by

excluding the polygraph results, the error would be harmless. App. R.

66(A) (“No error or defect in any ruling or order or in anything done or

omitted by the trial court or by any of the parties is ground for granting

relief or reversal on appeal where its probable impact, in light of all the

evidence in the case, is sufficiently minor so as not to affect the substantial

rights of the parties.”). Under Appellate Rule 66(A)’s “probable impact

test,” Russell “bears the burden of demonstrating how, in light of all the

evidence in the case, the error’s probable impact undermines confidence

in the outcome of the proceeding below.” Hayko v. State, 211 N.E.3d 483,

492 (Ind. 2023) (quotations omitted). He cannot do so on this record. The

resentencing court permitted Russell to present what he describes as a

“wealth of exculpatory evidence” supporting his residual doubt theory,

Appellant’s Br. at 73, and he does not provide any reason to believe that

this single additional piece of evidence—an unstipulated polygraph taken

decades after the murder with no foundation of reliability—would have

moved the needle.

Because Russell did not establish the reliability of the polygraph results,

the resentencing court did not exceed its discretion by sustaining the

State’s objection. And even if the resentencing court had been mistaken in

excluding the polygraph results, the error would be harmless.

3. Inadequate Findings to Support LWOP Sentence

Russell argues the resentencing court’s order was insufficient because it

did not include findings that are required for LWOP sentences. We agree,

but we conclude, based on our own independent reweighing of the

statutory aggravators and relevant mitigators, that Russell’s LWOP

sentence is appropriate.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 36 of 40

a. Harrison Requirements

“A sentence of life without parole requires findings that (1) the State

proved at least one [statutorily‐required] aggravating circumstance

beyond a reasonable doubt and (2) the aggravating circumstances

outweigh any mitigating circumstances.” Pittman v. State, 885 N.E.2d 1246,

1252 (Ind. 2008). For jury trials before 2002, the jury made those findings

and recommended whether to impose an LWOP sentence, but the judge

was not bound by the findings or required to follow the recommendation.

Id. The judge had to independently assess and weigh the aggravating and

mitigating circumstances, and then make the final determination whether

to impose an LWOP sentence. Id. The judge could only impose an LWOP

sentence through a detailed order that had to:

(i) . . . identify each mitigating and aggravating circumstance

found, (ii) . . . include the specific facts and reasons which [led]

the court to find the existence of each such circumstance, (iii)

. . . articulate that the mitigating and aggravating

circumstances [had] been evaluated and balanced in

determination of the sentence, and (iv) . . . set forth the trial

court’s personal conclusion that the sentence [was an]

appropriate punishment for [the] offender and [the] crime.

Harrison v. State, 644 N.E.2d 1243, 1262 (Ind. 1995) (citations omitted).

In 2002, the General Assembly amended the death penalty and LWOP

statute. Pub. L. No. 117–2002, § 2, 2002 Ind. Acts 1730, 1734. This

amendment requires that, when there is a jury trial, the jury must decide

“whether the charged aggravating circumstance or circumstances have

been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, whether any mitigating

circumstances that exist are outweighed by the aggravating

circumstance(s), and whether to impose a sentence of . . . life

imprisonment without parole.” Helsley v. State, 809 N.E.2d 292, 300 (Ind.

2004). If the jury recommends the death penalty or LWOP under this

amended framework, the sentencing judge generally must comply with

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 37 of 40

the jury’s recommendation. I.C. § 35‐50‐2‐9(e); see also Pittman, 885 N.E.2d

at 1253.

Thus, for capital and LWOP cases after the 2002 amendment, if a jury

finds at least one statutory aggravator proven beyond a reasonable doubt

and recommends the death penalty or LWOP, we do not require as much

detail in the sentencing judge’s order. Pittman, 885 N.E.2d at 1254 (“When

a jury makes the final sentencing determination, a Harrison‐style order

would be out of place.”). But even after the 2002 amendment, if the judge

is not bound by a jury recommendation and instead “exercises discretion

over the sentence imposed,” then the sentencing order must still comply

with Harrison’s requirements. Id. (explaining that when “the role of the

trial judge is similar to the judge’s role under the pre‐2002 statute,” the

“sentencing order must comply with Harrison”).

Here, the jury was instructed that its sentencing recommendation was

not binding on the trial court, and Russell’s resentencing did not involve a

jury. So the parties agree that the resentencing court had to comply with

Harrison before imposing an LWOP sentence. Russell argues the

resentencing order is insufficient because it does not contain all the

Harrison findings, and the State does not disagree (other than to argue that

this was a sentence modification order rather than a resentencing order,

but we rejected that argument above). In particular, Russell notes the

order does not find that the State proved at least one of the charged

statutory aggravators beyond a reasonable doubt, and it does not

differentiate between any of the other non‐statutory aggravators it found

and the statutory aggravators required to impose an LWOP sentence.

When we confront a sentencing order that fails to satisfy Harrison’s

requirements, we have three options: (1) remand the case to the

sentencing court for either a clarification or new sentencing decision; (2)

affirm the LWOP sentence if the sentencing order’s error was harmless

beyond a reasonable doubt; or (3) independently reweigh statutory

aggravators and applicable mitigating circumstances through our

appellate review. Bivins, 642 N.E.2d at 957. Both Russell and the State

propose that the third option is appropriate here, which is the same

approach we took for Russell’s direct appeal.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 38 of 40

We again choose that option, and after independently reweighing the

statutory aggravators and applicable mitigating circumstances, we

conclude Russell’s LWOP sentence is appropriate.

b. Independent Reweighing

The State charged Russell with two aggravators relevant here: (1)

Russell murdered Foddrill while committing or attempting to commit

criminal deviate conduct or rape, I.C. § 35‐50‐2‐9(b)(1)(D), (F) (1995); and

(2) Foddrill was murdered while a victim of criminal confinement or rape,

id. § ‐9(b)(13)(C), (D) (1995).8 The jury found Russell guilty of both

criminal deviate conduct, id. § 35‐42‐4‐2 (1995), and criminal confinement,

id. § 35‐42‐3‐3 (1995), and we previously held that the State proved those

charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Russell, 743 N.E.2d at 275 (“We also

find beyond a reasonable doubt that Russell committed criminal deviate

conduct upon Foddrill, and that she was a victim of criminal confinement

and rape.”). Those convictions are the basis for the non‐LWOP portion of

Russell’s sentence, and nothing in Russell’s submissions has persuaded us

to reconsider our previous holding. Thus, the State proved two statutory

aggravators beyond a reasonable doubt.

We must balance those two statutory aggravators against any

mitigators we find relevant to Russell’s LWOP sentence. Like the

resentencing court, we find Russell’s intellectual functioning (but not

adaptive behavior) mitigating. Additionally, Russell suffered neglect as a

child and has exhibited good behavior while incarcerated. As we said in

Russell’s direct appeal, “[w]e are cognizant of and sympathetic to

Russell’s mental limitations, his history of family neglect, his Bible study

and desire to minister to others, his expression of sorrow, and the needs of

his mother and brother.” Id.

8The State also charged, and the jury agreed, that Foddrill was tortured. But we set aside that

aggravator on Russell’s direct appeal because the LWOP statute did not list torture as an

aggravator when the crime was committed. Russell, 743 N.E.2d at 274–75.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 39 of 40

Yet even after considering the additional evidence presented at

resentencing, the result of our independent reweighing of the statutory

aggravators and mitigators remains unchanged from Russell’s direct

appeal. As we said before, “these factors do not supply sufficient

explanation for Russell’s conduct or otherwise offset the gravity of the

aggravating circumstances.” Id. The mitigating circumstances in this case

are substantially outweighed by the aggravating circumstances, and it is

therefore our independent conclusion that Russell’s LWOP sentence is

appropriate.

Conclusion

For these reasons, we affirm the resentencing court’s order.

Rush, C.J., and Massa and Slaughter, JJ., concur.

Goff, J., dissents with separate opinion.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Lisa Malmer Johnson

Law Office of Lisa Malmer Johnson

Brownsburg, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Theodore E. Rokita

Attorney General of Indiana

Megan M. Smith

Sierra A. Murray

Office of the Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 40 of 40

Goff, J., dissenting.

I agree with much of the Court’s opinion but differ on one crucial point.

The trial court did not, in my view, apply a medically informed standard

when assessing Jerry Russell’s claim of intellectual disability.

The trial court did not apply a medically informed

standard for adaptive deficits.

By statute, a murder defendant “with an intellectual disability” is

ineligible for a sentence of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP).

Ind. Code § 35-50-2-9(a). Such a defendant must prove by a

preponderance of the evidence that he “manifests,” before age twenty-

two, “significantly subaverage intellectual functioning” and “substantial

impairment of adaptive behavior.” I.C. § 35-36-9-2; Pruitt v. State, 834

N.E.2d 90, 103 (Ind. 2005) (imposing the preponderance standard). 1 Here,

the parties dispute only whether Russell proved the adaptive-behavior

element.

I first lay out the medically informed standard I believe courts should

use for identifying adaptive deficits. I then explain how the trial court

failed to apply such a standard.

A. Our standard for intellectual disability should reflect

current medical knowledge.

Defining the standard for “substantial impairment of adaptive

behavior” calls for an examination of federal Eighth Amendment law.

That’s because, as the State concedes, a “defendant facing an LWOP

sentence is entitled to the same procedural and substantive rights” as in a

death-penalty case. Appellee’s Br. at 72; see also Wright v. State, 168 N.E.3d

1While the language of the statute could suggest a focus on a defendant’s abilities before age

twenty-two, it has been understood simply as specifying the required time of onset. See Pruitt

v. Neal, 788 F.3d 248, 266 (7th Cir. 2015).

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 1 of 7

244, 261 (Ind. 2021). This is not a constitutional mandate but a legislative

one: “by inserting life without parole into the death penalty statute the

legislature chose to impose life without parole as an alternative

punishment applicable only to death penalty eligible convictions.” Ajabu

v. State, 693 N.E.2d 921, 938 (Ind. 1998) (applying U.S. Supreme Court

precedent to limit the scope of an LWOP aggravator). The United States

Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in this area thus carries more than merely

“persuasive” authority in Indiana LWOP cases. See ante, at 11 n.2.

There is, of course, an Eighth Amendment bar on executing “any

intellectually disabled individual.” Moore v. Texas, 137 S.Ct. 1039, 1048

(2017) (citing Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 321 (2002)). Under U.S.

Supreme Court precedent, a state’s determination of intellectual disability

“must be ‘informed by the medical community’s diagnostic framework.’”

Id. (quoting Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701, 721 (2014)). Our own case-law

reflects this principle. See State v. McManus, 868 N.E.2d 778, 785, 787–88

(Ind. 2007) (referring to standards published by two professional medical

organizations). 2 While states need not adhere to “everything stated in the

latest medical guide,” they may not disregard “current medical

standards,” such as those appearing in “leading diagnostic manuals” like

the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of

Mental Disorders. Moore, 137 S.Ct. at 1048–49. Even if reference to Eighth

Amendment standards were not mandatory, expert medical

understanding of intellectual disability would still be vitally important for

judges tasked with making these determinations. Hence why the

legislature requires an “evaluation” before any decision is made. I.C. § 35-

36-9-3(c).

Relevant here, the adaptive-functioning criterion for intellectual

disability in the DSM-5 requires deficits that “result in failure to meet

developmental and socio-cultural standards for personal independence

and social responsibility.” Am. Psychiatric Ass’n, Diagnostic and Statistical

2The two organizations were the American Association on Mental Retardation, now known

as the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, and the

American Psychiatric Association. McManus, 868 N.E.2d at 785.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 2 of 7

Manual of Mental Disorders 33 (5th ed. 2013). The DSM-5 looks at “adaptive

reasoning in three domains: conceptual, social, and practical.” Id. at 37. 3 A

person’s deficits satisfy the adaptive-functioning criterion “when at least

one domain” is “sufficiently impaired that ongoing support is needed in

order for the person to perform adequately in one or more life settings at

school, at work, at home, or in the community.” Id. at 38. The American

Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD)’s

definition is “substantively similar.” Daniel Flack, et al., Following Up After

Moore and Hall: A National Survey of State Legislation Defining Intellectual

Disability, 28 Psychol. Pub. Pol’y & L. 459, 460 (2022).

The U.S. Supreme Court has pointed out several traps to beware of

when determining a defendant’s adaptive functioning, two of which are

especially relevant here. First, courts should not overemphasize a

defendant’s “adaptive strengths” because “the medical community

focuses the adaptive-functioning inquiry on adaptive deficits.” Moore, 137

S.Ct. at 1050 (citations omitted). Indeed, the AAIDD states that assessors

must “assume that limitations often coexist with strengths.” AAIDD,

Defining Criteria for Intellectual Disability, https://perma.cc/3492-KAA7 (last

visited June 3, 2024). Finally, courts should be careful about relying “on

adaptive strengths developed in a controlled setting,” like a prison. Moore,

137 S.Ct. at 1050 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also

DSM-5, supra, at 38.

In sum, a medically informed adaptive-behavior inquiry asks whether

the defendant has intellectual deficits that necessitate ongoing support in

daily life activities outside prison—not primarily whether the defendant

has strengths in some areas or whether the defendant functions

adequately inside prison.

3The conceptual or academic domain involves competence in areas like memory, language,

math, and problem-solving. DSM-5, supra, at 37. The social domain involves aspects like

“awareness of others’ thoughts, feelings, and experiences” and “interpersonal communication

skills.” Id. The practical domain involves “learning and self-management across life settings,

including personal care, job responsibilities, money management,” and more. Id.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 3 of 7

B. The trial court relied on evidence of Russell’s adaptive

strengths while disregarding evidence of his deficits.

There is conflicting evidence as to whether Russell has substantial

adaptive deficits, including much that speaks to how he managed life as

an adult before going to prison. However, rather than weighing this

extensive evidence, the trial court’s resentencing order relies largely on

facts that do not negate intellectual disability, such as Russell having

married, been employed, worked on his home, and paid bills. And, in its

analysis of Russell’s test scores, the trial court failed to weigh the impact

of his years in the highly structured prison environment.

I summarize just a sample of the evidence in the record as follows.

The evidence shows unequivocally that Russell had substantial

impairments as a child. According to one of his brothers, Russell wore

diapers until just before he started first grade at age seven. When Russell

was fourteen, an educational psychologist assessed him (using the

language of the time) to be “in the middle of the educable mentally

retarded range.” Ex. Vol. IV, p. 10. Russell would probably be “unable to

master adequately all the tools of learning,” the report went on, but could

“succeed if schoolwork is geared to his needs and abilities.” Id. Normal

classroom activities would be “confusing” to Russell, so placement in a

special-education class was warranted. Id. And he needed particular

instruction on “[p]ersonal hygiene.” Id. Another assessment at age

fourteen found that Russell had the vocabulary of an eight-year old and

struggled with “social expectancies” and “commonsense judgment.” Id. at

35.

The evidence of how Russell functioned as an adult before going to

prison is conflicting. His former wife once stated, in the context of a social-

security disability determination, that Russell couldn’t “buy groceries

when instructed,” “estimate how much food to get,” or use money. Ex.

Vol. X, p. 58. On good days, he could do chores like washing dishes and

putting away leftovers if shown how, she said. On bad days, he couldn’t

“follow simple directions.” Id. at 59. Russell’s wife didn’t trust him to

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 4 of 7

babysit children or use the stove. It was, she summed up, “like having a

child to care for.” Id. at 58.

The reliability of Russell’s wife’s statements is somewhat questionable

because other evidence suggests Russell was not quite so impaired. A

psychologist who examined Russell for social-security purposes reported

that his “actual functional level” belied his IQ score. Id. at 67. Russell told

him that he met “all of his basic personal needs independently” and

would drive himself to stores and select goods. Id. at 67–68. The

psychologist deemed Russell “capable of managing disability funds.” Id.

at 68 (emphasis omitted). A letter from an elderly neighbor at the time of

Russell’s original sentencing attested that he would take fifty dollars, buy

her groceries, and come back with the receipt.

This is only an illustration of the many conflicts in the evidence from

Russell’s life before prison. The parties’ appellate briefs dispute at length

the evidence concerning Russell’s employment, money-management

skills, childcare abilities, home repairs, and more. To give just two more

examples, Russell told a psychologist in 1990 that he had lost “five or six

jobs” because, being unable to read, he would always “do something [he]

shouldn’t do.” Id. at 64. And, while Russell had worked on repairing his

house, local officials deemed it uninhabitable and disconnected the

utilities.

The evidence of Russell’s functioning as an adult in prison is also

mixed. For example, one performance report stated that he completed all

his tasks as a kitchen worker and taught others how to improve. Many

other reports say Russell works well and stays out of trouble. He has

earned certificates for work done with nail-guns, saws, drill presses, and

other hand-tools, and gotten qualified to operate forklifts. On the other

hand, Russell’s work in the kitchen was limited to washing dishes. When

he tried to help with cooking, he couldn’t calculate “how much of each

ingredient to use to prepare food for a certain number of people.” Ex. Vol.

XI, p. 26.

For purposes of this litigation, Dr. Dennis Keyes, a professor of special

education, assessed Russell, interviewed his siblings and a parole or

probation officer, and reviewed records. He testified that Russell is

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 5 of 7

intellectually disabled, likely since he was less than five years old, and has

“severe impairments” to his awareness, understanding, logic, memory,

appreciation of cause and effect, and ability to plan. Tr. Vol. II, pp. 40–41.

Dr. Keyes asked a brother and sister of Russell’s about his functioning by

using the Adaptive Behavior Assessment System II (ABAS II) test. Their

answers placed Russell clearly within the range of disability. Russell’s

own answers placed him clear of that range. Dr. Keyes also assessed

Russell against the Independent Living Scales (ILS) and scored him at 75,

which is right at the “cut-off” but nevertheless “within the range” of

disability, after allowing for the standard measurement error of five

points. Id. at 25, 31–32. Dr. Keyes did not break down the ILS scores but

Russell appears to have scored especially low on memory/orientation,

managing money, and health and safety. On the Wide-Range

Achievement Test (WRAT), Russell scored 76 on reading comprehension

and 76 on math. However, Dr. Keyes explained that Russell achieved

these scores only after years of highly structured prison life, which

improved his ability to function.

Our review is for clear error. Pruitt, 834 N.E.2d at 104. But, as I

explained above, a trial court’s inquiry should focus on the magnitude of

the defendant’s deficits, not just his strengths, and recognize the limited

evidentiary value of how well he functions in the structured prison

environment.

Here, the trial court’s resentencing order relies in significant part on

evidence about Russell’s pre-prison adult life. But it focuses almost

entirely on what the trial court saw as his adaptive strengths, rather than

evidence regarding his asserted deficits. Indeed, the adaptive-behavior

section of the order mentions none of the evidence of Russell’s real-life

weaknesses either in childhood or adulthood. Instead, it relies on Russell

having gotten married, been employed, worked on his home, paid bills,

held a driver’s license, owned vehicles, and helped with errands, chores,

and caring for family members.

The trouble with this analysis is that people with mild intellectual

disability can carry out tasks of daily life like shopping, child-care, and

banking with “some support,” and can hold “jobs that do not emphasize

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 6 of 7

conceptual skills.” DSM-5, supra, at 34. Dr. Keyes explained that

intellectually disabled people can often perform “monotonous jobs”

correctly. Tr. Vol. II, p. 30. And he expressly stated that while Russell is

capable of getting a job and taking “care of himself in most things,”

somebody “will have to keep an eye on him.” Id. at 42. In another Indiana

case, an expert explained that “individuals with mild intellectual

disability are able to find employment in a variety of fields and are able to

obtain a driver’s license.” Pruitt v. Neal, 788 F.3d 248, 259 (7th Cir. 2015).

Courts can no longer rely on the “incorrect stereotypes” that intellectually

disabled people “cannot have jobs or relationships.” Smith v. Sharp, 935

F.3d 1064, 1086 (10th Cir. 2019).

Turning to Russell’s test scores, the trial court found most convincing

his ILS and WRAT scores, rather than the ABAS II scores based on his

siblings’ responses. The composite ILS and WRAT scores were at or just

above the cut-off for intellectual disability after allowing for the standard

error. Critically, though, the trial court disregarded Dr. Keyes’s warning

that Russell achieved scores this high only because he was living in a

prison providing “about the highest structure you are going to find.” Tr.

Vol. II, p. 26.

In sum, the trial court rejected uncontradicted expert testimony that

Russell is intellectually disabled by citing evidence of Russell’s abilities

that are—when viewed in a medically informed way—consistent with

him being disabled. The trial court did not engage with the evidence

tending to show Russell’s deficits and ignored the impact of prison

structure on his test scores. The trial court was not bound to credit or

accept evidence favoring Russell’s claim, of course, but it was bound to

consider it. The order under review would not pass muster in a death-

penalty case. See, e.g., Jackson v. Kelley, 898 F.3d 859, 865 (8th Cir. 2018)

(criticizing the district court for determining that the applicant’s “adaptive

strengths,” some of which he had developed in prison, “outweighed his

adaptive deficits”). Nor should it pass muster here.

Because I consider the trial court’s findings inadequate to deem Russell

eligible for LWOP, I would vacate the sentence and remand for further

findings. I respectfully dissent.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S‐LW‐451 | June 3, 2024 Page 7 of 7