## Facts

- Wayne A. Campbell had an ongoing property easement dispute with his neighbors, Jean and Alva Kincaid.
- On November 7, 2001, Campbell entered the Kincaids’ home and beat both victims, causing serious injuries.
- After a standoff with police, Campbell was arrested.
- The State charged Campbell with multiple offenses, including two counts of attempted murder, burglary, and battery-related counts.
- In 2003, a jury found Campbell guilty of two counts of attempted murder, burglary resulting in serious bodily injury (then entered as a Class A felony), aggravated battery (Class B felony), and battery (Class C felony).
- During jury deliberations, the jury asked the trial court to define “intent.”
- In response, the court gave a standard instruction defining “intentionally” in terms of a “conscious objective,” including that when a person is charged with intentionally causing a result, the person must have a conscious objective both to engage in the conduct and to cause the result.
- Campbell’s trial counsel did not object to the supplemental instruction.
- On direct appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals ordered Campbell’s burglary conviction reduced from a Class A felony to a Class B felony; the remainder of the convictions and sentence were affirmed.
- Campbell later filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on (1) counsel’s conduct during voir dire and (2) counsel’s failure to object to the supplemental “intentionally” instruction.
- The post-conviction court denied relief, the Court of Appeals affirmed (noting disagreement in prior cases about phrasing of intent instructions), and the Indiana Supreme Court accepted transfer.

## Issues

1. Whether Campbell proved ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on counsel’s conduct during voir dire.
2. Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object when the trial court, responding to a jury question during deliberations, gave a supplemental instruction defining “intentionally.”
3. Whether, in a post-conviction appeal, the record required reversal because the facts and law pointed unerringly and unmistakably to a result opposite the post-conviction court’s denial of relief.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the post-conviction court’s denial of relief.
- Campbell did not establish that voir dire conduct amounted to constitutionally deficient performance or that it likely changed the outcome.
- Campbell did not establish ineffective assistance based on the failure to object to the supplemental “intentionally” instruction because the instruction was not shown to be an incorrect statement of law, and Campbell did not prove prejudice.
- Because Campbell did not satisfy Strickland’s deficiency-and-prejudice requirements, post-conviction relief was properly denied.

## Legal Principles

- Ineffective assistance of counsel requires proof of (1) deficient performance and (2) prejudice, meaning a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the result would have been different. *Strickland v. Washington*.
- In post-conviction proceedings, the petitioner bears the burden of proof, and on appeal a denial of post-conviction relief is reversed only when the evidence leads unerringly and unmistakably to a conclusion opposite that reached by the post-conviction court.
- Counsel is not ineffective for failing to raise an objection that lacks merit; a failure to object does not show deficiency where the challenged instruction is not shown to misstate the law.
- A person acts “intentionally” when it is the person’s conscious objective to engage in the conduct; when the charge requires intentionally causing a result, the intent requirement reaches both the conduct and the result.
- Trial courts may respond to juror questions during deliberations by giving supplemental instructions to clarify points of law, consistent with Indiana Jury Rule 28 and Indiana statutes addressing jury requests for information.

## Conclusion

The Indiana Supreme Court held that Campbell failed to carry his post-conviction burden to prove ineffective assistance of trial counsel. He did not show that counsel’s voir dire choices or counsel’s lack of objection to the deliberation-stage “intentionally” instruction fell below professional norms, and he did not show a reasonable probability that any claimed error affected the verdict; therefore, the denial of post-conviction relief was affirmed.


Campbell v. State, 19 N.E.3d 271 (2014)