## Facts

- Three masked men robbed the Gary National Bank in Gary, Indiana on August 11, 1981; an automatic bank security camera recorded the robbery.
- Officer George Yaros responded to a robbery-in-progress call and was killed in a gunfight as the robbers exited the bank; the shooter in a blue suit fired an additional shot after kicking the officer’s gun away.
- The robbers fled in a two-tone blue sedan; during the chase the man in the blue suit discarded an afro wig and other items near a construction site and was soon arrested and identified by clothing as Rufus Lee Averhart.
- Police recovered a revolver, a bag, and a jacket from bushes; a .44-magnum pistol was recovered along the escape route, and a witness identified it as having been sold to Averhart.
- Ballistics evidence indicated the .44-magnum fired the fatal shot.
- The State introduced 309 security-camera photographs; a bank employee testified the photos accurately depicted the robbery, and other evidence supported that the camera system worked properly and the images were unaltered.
- Averhart, Ralph Dennis Hutson, and David North were jointly tried after a change of venue; all were convicted of murder and felony murder.
- The jury recommended death only for Averhart; the court imposed 60-year sentences on Hutson and North and a death sentence on Averhart.

## Issues

1. Whether the bank security-camera photographs were properly authenticated and admissible.
2. Whether claimed defects in arrest procedures, the charging information, or a grand jury indictment required reversal.
3. Whether denial of severance in a joint trial of three defendants was reversible error.
4. Whether representation by attorneys from the same public defender’s office created a conflict of interest requiring reversal.
5. Whether voir dire, courtroom-security measures (guards and restraints), and advising the jury its capital verdict was advisory denied a fair trial.
6. Whether denial of self-representation to Averhart and Hutson violated the right to proceed without counsel.
7. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support murder and felony-murder convictions.
8. Whether Averhart’s death sentence was valid, including use of a prior murder conviction as an aggravating circumstance and the constitutionality and application of Indiana’s capital-sentencing procedure.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the murder and felony-murder convictions of Averhart, Hutson, and North.
- The court affirmed Hutson’s and North’s 60-year sentences.
- The court affirmed Averhart’s death sentence.
- The court held the security-camera photographs were properly admitted based on evidence of system reliability, image integrity, and witness testimony that the images fairly and accurately depicted the robbery.
- The court rejected claims based on arrest or charging irregularities where no substantial prejudice to defense preparation or trial fairness was shown.
- The court upheld denial of severance because defendants were charged from the same criminal episode and did not show actual prejudice from a joint trial.
- The court found no reversible conflict of interest from public-defender-office representation absent proof of an actual conflict that adversely affected performance.
- The court found no reversible error in jury-related rulings or security measures absent an abuse of discretion and a showing of actual prejudice; describing the jury’s capital verdict as a recommendation was consistent with the statutory sentencing structure.
- The court concluded defendants did not establish a clear, timely, unequivocal, knowing waiver of counsel sufficient to require self-representation.
- The court held the evidence, including photographs, eyewitness testimony, chase evidence, weapon recovery, and ballistics, permitted a reasonable jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, including that the killing occurred during the robbery.
- The court upheld the use of a prior murder conviction as a statutory aggravator and sustained the constitutionality and application of Indiana’s death-penalty procedure.

## Legal Principles

- Automatic security-camera photographs are admissible when supported by evidence that the recording system functioned properly, the images were not altered, and a witness can testify the images fairly and accurately depict the events.
- Technical defects in arrest procedures or charging instruments do not warrant reversal without a showing of prejudice to substantial rights, including adequate notice and ability to prepare a defense.
- Severance is not required in a multi-defendant prosecution arising from a single episode absent a showing that a joint trial caused actual prejudice or denied a fair trial.
- Joint representation (including by lawyers from the same public defender’s office) is not reversible error without proof of an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected counsel’s performance.
- Trial courts have discretion over courtroom security and jury management; reversal requires an abuse of discretion and a showing of actual prejudice.
- A defendant’s right to self-representation requires a clear, unequivocal, knowing, and voluntary waiver of counsel; equivocal or untimely requests may be denied.
- Sufficiency review considers evidence most favorable to the verdict and asks whether a reasonable factfinder could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- In Indiana capital sentencing, the jury’s death verdict is a recommendation and the judge is the formal sentencer; statutory aggravators may include a prior murder conviction when authorized by statute.

## Conclusion

The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the defendants’ murder and felony-murder convictions and upheld Averhart’s death sentence, concluding that the security-camera photographs were properly authenticated, the joint trial and representation did not produce reversible prejudice, the trial court’s jury and security rulings were within its discretion, the self-representation claims failed for lack of a clear waiver, the evidence supported guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the capital-sentencing process and aggravating circumstance were valid.


Averhart v. State, 470 N.E.2d 666 (Ind. 1984)