Attractive, promiscuous and
often-married Susan Grund only wanted her attorney husbandís
money. When he initiated divorce proceedings she shot him in the
eye for a quarter of a million dollars in insurance benefits.
Court rejects appeal of
By Scott Smith - Pharos-Tribune.com
Sep 06, 2012
The Indiana Supreme Court has turned aside the
appeal of convicted killer Susan Grund, ending her hopes of a
Grund, 53, is serving 60 years in the death of
her husband, former Miami County Prosecutor James Grund.
The Indiana Court of Appeals turned down her
appeal in June, and last week, the Indiana Supreme Court declined
to hear the case.
James Grund was found dead of a single gunshot
wound in August 1992, and a jury convicted Susan Grund of murder
on March 16, 1994.
She has maintained she didnít kill her husband,
however, and was featured in a 2010 prison interview for the
Investigation Discovery channel, where she sat down with former
FBI agent Candice DeLong.
After the interview, DeLong, who became famous
as the basis of the character Clarice Starling in the book and
movie ďThe Silence of the Lambs,Ē pronounced Susan Grund a
delusional narcissist and expressed deep skepticism about Grundís
recollection of events.
In the appeal, Grundís attorneys argued former
Miami County Prosecutor Wilbur Siders had improper contact with
jury members from Grundís first trial, which ended in a mistrial
after jurors were unable to reach a verdict.
Siders acknowledged meeting with jury members
from the first trial before the second trial, but first the trial
court and then the appeals court found nothing improper in the
contact. The Supreme Courtís decision not to grant a hearing means
the earlier decisions will stand.
According to prosecutors, Susan Grund was
arrested in November 1992 after her sister, Darlene Worden, told
detectives Susan Grund had confessed to shooting James Grund.
According to family members, the confession was
confirmed when Susan Grundís mother later found that a large
copper kettle, which she kept in her attic, had been filled with
According to court records, the mother took the
kettle to police in Peru, who broke open the concrete and found
the murder weapon.
The gun had been reported stolen about a month
before the murder.
Police suggested the Grundsí marriage was in
trouble, and that Susan Grund didnít want a divorce.
This was Susan Grundís second attempt at
appealing the conviction, which was upheld on direct appeal
shortly after her trial.
Her earliest possible release date from prison
is May 6, 2020, according to the Indiana Department of
Susan Grund, Oversexed Murderess
By David Krajicek
Blood on Her Husband
A brand-new widow
dialed 911 in Peru, Indiana, a few minutes before midnight on
August 3, 1992, to report that her spouse had a problem.
She told an
emergency operator, "It's my husband...There's blood on him."
The operator got
answers to who, what and where, and soon phones were jangling in
the small world of lawyers and law enforcers in Peru (pop.
13,000), an hour's drive north of Indianapolis.
The victim, James Grund, 47, had been shot
through the left eye, and he was dead. This was big news in Peru.
Grund, known as
Jimmy, was former county prosecutor. He and his young wife, the
slinky and alluring Susan, 33, were notables among the town's
Cops who had been
to their spacious country home as party guests, now found
themselves treating it as a crime scene.
As police and EMTs
arrived that night, Susan Grund told them it seemed obvious that
her husband had surprised a burglar. The contents of two suitcases
were hurled about. A walk-in closet had been ransacked and a
jewelry cabinet plundered.
Yet other clues
made burglary unlikely.
Grund's body was
on a bedroom sofa in front of a coffee table where he liked to
work while watching TV. On the table before him were bills and
checks, case notes, and the TV remote control.
One hand clutched
a tissue, as though he were about to blow his nose.
It seemed that the
burglar had surprised Grund, not the other way around. Something
wasn't right. Why would a burglar stalk in on Grund and shoot him?
It occurred to
Dean Marks, an Indiana State Police forensic technician, that the
disarray in the house seemed staged.
As law enforcers
carefully padded about the house, Susan Grund nattered on about
her burglary theory, as though she were some kind of crime expert.
But she was, in a
Susan was a hometown Peru girl, although she
had been around the block a few times. Her early life had little
in common with the lifestyle she enjoyed as wife of a prominent
She was born Sue Ann Sanders in 1958, one of
seven children raised on the poor side of town by an alcoholic
father and a farm-raised mother, Nellie.
The family's problems included any number of
pathologies. Her father William, a steelworker, was physically
abusive, especially when he was drinking. Sue Ann later said he
had sexually assaulted her.
Even before she reached her teen years, Sue Ann
was plotting to escape her background. She changed her name to
Susan, which she reckoned sounded less trailer-trashy than Sue
Susan was an attractive girlslim, with a bright
smile. Good looks gave her self-confidence, and she was never shy
about expressing her opinion.
She grew up fast and was sexually precocious,
according to true crime author Wensley Clarkson. To more than a
few boys, she became One-Night Stand Sue Ann.
Susan left high school at age 17 and moved 20
miles to the regional hub city of Kokomo, Ind., a car industry
town of 45,000. There, she took up with a local rock and roll
musician named Ronnie Lovell.
On a lark, they got married just weeks after
meeting, in 1975. Susan followed Lovell to gigs, helping to haul
gear and hanging out as a band chick.
But rock and roll wasn't paying the bills in
Kokomo, and Lovell decided to take his new bride back to his
hometown, Oklahoma City.
The marriage to Ronnie
Lovell would prove to be the first of many times that Susan would
say "I do." That part of the wedding vows came easily to her. It
was the til-death-do-us-part provision that proved challenging.
Within days of her courthouse wedding to
Lovell, she was bedding other men. Susan was inflicted with the
itch she couldn't scratch, try as she might.
As author Clarkson put it, "Susan's biggest
problem was sex."
Susan came of age amid the sexual revolution
that finally arrived in Middle America in the 1970s. The gold band
on her ring finger was largely irrelevant when it came to carnal
She was not the sort to sublimate her libido.
When it came knocking, Susan Sanders Lovell always answered. She
would meet a new guy and one thing would lead to anotheroften very
quickly. She couldn't help herself.
And the sexual itch she developed in Indiana
didn't disappear when she moved to Oklahoma City.
Ronnie Lovell worked days as a construction
worker and nights as a musician, and Susan took a job helping to
manage the apartment complex where they lived.
Susan met any number of men eager to
accommodate her needs, but she eventually settled on one as a
regular lover. He was Gary Campbell, 24, a twangy cowboy who made
a living driving trucks. Conveniently, he lived in the same
When Lovell finally got hip and confronted his
wife about her affairs, she packed her clothes and moved into
Campbell's unita smooth transition.
After getting pregnant with her new squeeze,
Susan divorced Lovell and married Campbell in 1979. She was twice
a bride and barely out of her teens.
A few months after the wedding ceremony, she
gave birth to Campbell's son, whom they named Jacob.
But her second marriage was doomed to follow
the template of the first.
A Violent Kink
Two or three times a year, Susan and her baby
would leave Campbell in Oklahoma and make the 800-mile drive home
to Indiana to visit her mother and sisters.
Back in Peru, Susan would often leave her child
with a relative, stow away her wedding ring and hit the bars with
More than once, the friends' jaws dropped at
Susan's cavalier inclination toward casual sex. If her libido was
running hot, she would meet a man and within minutes lead him out
to the parking lot for back-seat humping.
Back in Oklahoma City, Campbell began to
understand that it would not be a happily-ever-after marriage.
He certainly must have known that his wife was
promiscuous, given the circumstances under which they met. But he
also soon learned the hard way that Susan harbored deep anger and
was prone toward inexplicable violent outbursts.
Once, she stabbed him in the chest with
scissors. Another time, she poked him in the leg with a knife.
Campbell said the attacks had a kinky twist:
Susan was sexually aroused by the violence and initiated
Whatever relationship the couple had in the
bedroom, it was not enough to sustain a marriage wracked by
promiscuity and violence. After two troubled years with Campbell,
Susan began searching for something better.
It arrived in the person of Tom Whited, a
fellow employee at Perry Filters, the Oklahoma City manufacturer
where she had gone to work. Whited was a catcha college-educated
former Army captain and homeowner. His wife, the daughter of the
Perry factory owner, had recently died of cancer, leaving Whited
and his son, Tommy, alone in a handsome house that his
father-in-law had given the couple as a wedding gift.
To that point, Susan's relationships were
rather uncomplicated in that her husbands and various lovers more
or less shared her moral code.
But the Whited affair would prove to be
Tommy and Jacob
Tom Whited, a graduate of Rice University in
Houston, had resigned his Army commission in 1981 due to a head
injury suffered in a car accident, according to Wensley's account
in his book Deadly Seduction. At the same time, his wife,
Cheryl, was being treated for the leukemia that eventually took
After Cheryl died, her father, Lester Suenram,
took a personal interest in the well-being of his grandson, Tommy.
He also kept an eye on his son-in-law, which made for some
uncomfortable moments at the Perry factory outside Oklahoma City.
Suenram noticed, for example, when Whited began
flirting at work with Susan, and he wasn't happy about it.
He cautioned Whited. Cheryl had been gone for
only six months, he said, and Susan was a married woman.
But there was no stopping the romance.
Susan divorced Campbell and took custody of
Jacob. In the fall of 1982, she and Tom Whited drove to Austin,
Texas, and were married.
The blushing bride had gained another surname.
Susan Sanders Lovell Campbell Whited spent her
24th birthday on her third honeymoon.
She moved into Whited's comfortable home on
Rushing Road, a five-minute walk from Lake Hefner, a vast,
sailboat-dotted body of water in northwest Oklahoma City.
Coincidentally, Tommy Whited and Jacob Campbell, both 3 at the
time of the marriage, were just months apart in age.
Rather than go into a complicated explanation
about the blended family, Susan often simply identified the boys
as twins. She sometimes dressed them in identical outfits, and
little Tommy began addressing Susan as "Mommy."
From the outside, the four seemed like a happy
family. They weren't.
"Mommy Hit Me"
A few months after Susan married Whited, Tommy
was admitted to an Oklahoma City hospital with a fractured skull
and brain swelling. Susan tearfully explained to her husband, who
had not witnessed the injury, that Tommy had fallen and struck his
But Tommy gave another account. A nurse asked
him what had happened, and the groggy boy replied, "My mommy hit
The early 1980s were hardly the Dark Ages. But
in a provincial place like Oklahoma City in 1983, child abuse was
still too often treated not as a crime but as a family problem
best worked out at home.
Hospital officials failed to report the injury
to police, despite Tommy's account. Susan got the benefit of the
doubt, and the boy was returned to her care after several days of
Friends of Tommy's late mother later told
author Clarkson that they suspected Susan was beating her stepson.
The bubbly boy was transformed into a nervous wreck after his
father remarried. He cried out in fear of a whipping when he
spilled a soda, and he once told his birth mother's best friend
that Susan "dropped me on my head."
The child also revealed that while stepbrother
Jacob was allowed to loll around the house all day, Susan lined
him up in front of the television set and demanded that he do
calisthenics during "The Richard Simmons Show."
Tommy was back in the hospital four months
later, in May 1983, this time unconscious and suffering from a
Susan Whited explained that over several days
he had fallen out of a shopping cart and tripped over their pet
dog and hit his head on concrete. By her account, he was the
clumsiest boy in America.
This time, doctors didn't buy it. They said his
injuries indicated sadistic beatings over a sustained period.
They found bruises to his head, torso and
limbs, along with multiple cigarette burns. There was also trauma
to his rectum that indicated sexual assault.
Police were alerted, and Susan was booked on
suspicion of felony child abuse. She stuck with her absurd
clumsiness story, until her own son told the truth.
Detectives sat down with Jacob, who tearfully
explained that his mother frequently beat Tommy for no good
Probation and Peru
Tommy Whited was left brain-damaged and
bedridden by the brain injury inflicted by his stepmother.
Susan was charged with felony assault and
several related counts. The boy's grandfather, Lester Suenram, was
understandably furious. He blamed Susan, but he also reserved
wrath for his former son-in-law for failing to recognize the evil
in his new wife.
Suenram sought vigorous prosecution, but he was
convinced by the Oklahoma authoritiesperhaps informed by
provincial beliefs about child abuse-that the case would be
difficult to prove.
Susan was allowed to plead guilty to a single
felony count of child beating. Remarkably, after pummeling her
stepson into a permanent vegetative state, she was given a
five-year suspended sentence.
The shocking case rated nothing more than a
line of agate type in the court record of the local newspaper.
Care of Tommy Whited was entrusted to
Grandfather Suenram, who dedicated his wealth to his grandson's
comfort. Custody of Jacob Campbell was transferred to that boy's
And where did this leave Susan and Tom Whited?
In bed. They continued to copulate like bunnies even after the
woman had beaten to a pulp Whited's namesake son.
Ostracized by his own relatives, Whited finally
spurned Susan, whom he would later describe as "the world's
greatest liar." She decided to return to her hometown, nine years
after she'd left. When she left for Peru in the summer of 1984,
she was three months pregnant with a daughter fathered by Tom
Peru is a quirky little city on the Wabash
River in north-central Indiana.
Its most famous native son was Cole Porter, the
songwriter. He is buried there, but cynical locals like to point
out that he had the sense to leave Peru when he was young and
didn't return until he was in a pine box.
Peru claims a curious title as America's
It was a key railroad hub in the late 1800s,
during the heyday of traveling circuses. Its circus connection
began in 1882, when a local businessman and circus buff, Ben
Wallace, bought out a bankrupt "railroad" show that had passed
But Wallace wasn't satisfied with a cut-rate
circus. He collected exotic animals, ordered ornate new wagons and
took his show on the road in 1884, as "Wallace and Co.'s Great
World Menagerie, Grand International Mardi Gras, Highway Holiday
Hidalgo and Alliance of Novelties."
The Great Wallace Show, as it became known, was
one of mid-America's biggest, and Wallace used Peru as winter
quarters to tend the animals, repair equipment and prepare for the
Over the years, the Wallace Show merged with
many others, and the winter quarters in Peru were in steady use by
one circus or another for most of 50 years. Among them were the
most storied of America's traveling shows, including Ringling
Brothers and Barnum & Bailey. Peru residents were treated to free
previews of the acts, and circus legends like Emmett Kelly, the
sad-faced clown, became regular habitus of Main Street.
The Great Depression slowed the road show gravy
train, and the last circus finally pulled out of Peru winter
quarters in the 1940s, destined for warmer environs. Sarasota,
Florida, became the nation's circus hub when Ringling moved its
winter quarters there.
The circuses forgot Peru, but the city never
got the circus out of its blood.
In 1958, Peru began staging an amateur circus
that continues today in a weeklong celebration each July. And in
1981, when Sarasota's Circus Hall of Fame went on the auction
block, Peru bought it and moved it back to Indiana.
With three marriages, countless affairs, two
pregnancies and a child abuse conviction under her belt, Susan
Whited joined the parade of clowns headed back to Circus City.
Big Name in Town
Susan had left Peru as a sexually precocious
teenager. She returned as a sexually confident woman in her
mid-20s. Pregnant or not, she arrived in town as randy as ever.
And she knew how to work a room, even in maternity clothes.
Through the local bar scene, Susan met a couple
of men who worked in law enforcement. As a practical joke, they
thought it would be funny to hook her up on a blind date with
their friend Jimmy Grund.
Grund's was a big name in the legal community
of Peru and Miami County, Ohio. Law was the family business. His
father, James Sr., had been a prominent attorney, prosecutor and
judge in the county. A grandfather and uncle also had served as
Jimmy, born two days before Christmas in 1944,
was destined to follow in their footsteps. He graduated from Peru
High School in 1962, then went on to college and law school at the
University of Indiana, two hours downstate in Bloomington. During
his second year of undergraduate school, Grund met a pert, pretty
coed, a freshman named Jane Snyder. Jimmy and Jane were married a
year later, in 1965, when Snyder got pregnant.
Daughter Jama was born in July 1965, and son
David arrived in 1970, just after Grund finished law school. The
young family returned to Peru, and Jimmy went to work as an
assistant to his father, who was then serving as county
Grund worked from 1971 to 1978 as an assistant
prosecutor, then served four years, 1978-82, as the county's top
prosecutor when his father stepped aside.
Grund had a swashbuckling side. He owned an
interest in a bar in Peru, where he was an avid customer. He also
had a pilot's license, and he loved to ferry his pals on guys-only
fishing trips up north.
Jimmy and Jane's marriage had faltered during
Jimmy's years as county attorney, and the couple was divorced in
1980. Curiously, they decided to continue to live togetherin part
for the sake of their children, and in part because it was
The arrangement continued until the summer of
1984, when Susan walked into Grund's life.
Jimmy Grund agreed to a blind date with Susan
in the summer of 1984 after his friends convinced him that she was
sexy. They didn't mention that she would be wearing a pregnancy
It didn't matter. Grund was enticed.
What did he see in her? Her age, for one thing.
He was pushing toward middle age at 39 and had
begun to display the inevitable side effectsa thickening in the
middle and a thinning on top. She was 25, and the 14 years between
them were enough to inspire any older man's ego.
For her part, she found Grund sophisticated and
worldly. It didn't hurt that he had moneyfar more than any other
man with whom she had been intimate.
The attraction was practical, as well. She
didn't want to face childbirth alone, and her other top prospect
for male companionship at that point was an old flame with whom
she had cheated on at least two of her husbands.
She opted for Grund. A few months after they
met, Grund served as stand-in father during delivery of Susan's
daughter, whom she named Tanelle. Days later, the couple and the
baby traveled to Florida, where they were married on December 6 in
an oceanside rite at Flagler Beach.
In the early months of the marriage, Susan set
a goal to regain custody of her son, Jacob, who was living with
his father in Oklahoma City. Jimmy Grund proved to be a useful
tool for Susan's endeavor.
Of course, this required Susan to reveal her
criminal conviction for child abuse. She presented herself to her
new husband as a victim of overzealous prosecutiona scapegoat in a
For 11 years as a prosecutor, Grund had heard a
variation on this sort of protest from scores of criminals he'd
faced in court. As a sage attorney, he had the wherewithal to
reach out to Oklahoma authorities to get a second perspective on
the brutal assault on Susan's stepson. He apparently did not do
Blindly in love, he used his money and
persuasion to get Jacob back into Susan's arms. In Oklahoma City,
Gary Campbell, Susan's truck-driving ex, was having financial
problems. According to author Clarkson, Jimmy Grund sent several
checks to Campbell to help him catch up. Grund then arranged a job
for Campbell in Logansport, Ind., near Peru. The father and son
moved there, and Susan became caretaker for Jacob.
Soon, Campbell met and married an Indiana
woman, and the fledgling couple decided they were better off
without the baggage of the boy.
Campbell signed over custody of Jacob, with
Grund handling the legal paperwork, and returned to Oklahoma with
his new wife. The Grunds also convinced Tom Whited to sign over
permanent custody of his daughter Tanelle.
Susan Grund seemed to have everything she
wanted, including an affluent lifestyle far removed from her
But it wasn't enough.
In the summer of 1986, the couple moved into a
custom-built, contemporary-style home on a wooded lot at the edge
of Peru. Grund spent $175,000 on the housean eye-popping price in
a region of the country known for its affordable homes. Grund
bankrolled a downtown boutique for his wife, Clothes by Susan, and
Sue Ann Sanders from the wrong side of the tracks suddenly found
herself an arbiter of fashion in her hometown.
The Grunds were a part of Peru society, such as
it was. They were guests or hosts of frequent barbecues and
cocktail partiesat which, more than a few people noticed, Jimmy
Grund often slurped down one too many gin and tonics.
Meanwhile, Susan ascended another step in
society in 1989 when she entered the Mrs. Indiana America Pageant
As she entered her 30s, Susan had maintained a
girlish figure, and she showed it off as often as possible. The
decorative centerpiece of the Grunds' bedroom in the new house was
a nude painting of Susan that Jimmy had commissioned.
She liked to show it to just about anyone who
Susan was a dedicated collector of sensual
apparel, and she enjoyed showing that off, too. She shot Polaroid
photos of herself in her latest acquisitions from Victoria's
Secret or Frederick's of Hollywood. She would slip copies of the
images into her husband's briefcase, and she always insisted that
he take along a couple of the sexy pictures on fishing trips.
But he wasn't the only man to see her racy
knickers up close.
Susan never did lose her wandering eye, and
Peru was soon atwitter with gossip about her various assignations.
Some joked that her seven-year itch had arrived in seven days.
To be fair, the Grunds were a high-profile
couple, and not all stories told by jealous or resentful
small-towners are necessarily true. But Susan Grund told many of
the stories on herself.
She was forever sharing the graphic details of
her sexual encounters with confidantes, including her sisters, her
mother and her new clique of women friends whose names popped up
in the local newspaper society column.
How many lovers did she have? Only she knew for
certain, but Susan certainly got around.
There was the accountant in the next town over.
The hunky local cop. The holy-roller from the Baptist church. A
couple friends of her husband. The pick-ups at this local bar or
that, the one-night stands with strangers at Indianapolis hotels
or her sister's apartment in Kokomo, the local gay man she tried
to seduce into changing teams.
There were even whispers that Susan had tried
to seduce Grund's son, David. An adolescent when the couple
married in 1983, David had grown into a strapping young man by the
Jimmy heard the gossip. In 1990, his own mother
confronted him about Susan's reputation. He shrugged.
But as the embers of the relationship began to
fade, he spent more and more time in the company of his fishing
pals and his gin and tonicswhich increased Susan's opportunities
to cat around.
By the summer of 1992, Jimmy Grund had begun to
complain bitterly to friends about the state of his marriage.
The couple argued incessantlyboth in private
and in publicnot about Susan's affairs but about her extravagant
spending on clothing, jewelry, lingerie and cars.
Grund knew he was stuck with a wife who did not
love him. Worse, he had reached the sobering conclusion that he
had been inveigled by a seductress who wanted not him but his
Grund wanted out. In mid-July, he visited a
fellow lawyer in Peru to ask him to begin the divorce process.
He decided to wait to file the paperwork until
he and Susan and her two children returned from a long-planned
vacation to Alaska, according to author Clarkson. During that
trip, Grund informed Susan that he would file for divorce when
they got home.
He didn't get a chance. They returned to Peru
on August 1, a Saturday. Scarcely two days later, at not quite
midnight Monday, Jimmy Grund was shot through the eye and killed.
His murder was one of those cases that leads to head-scratching by
those blessed with common sense.
By the time of the slaying, half of the
population of Peruincluding cops and prosecutorsknew that the
Grunds' marriage was on a fast track to dissolution. The other
half had slept with Susan.
Did she not expect to be scrutinized?
The investigation began with klieg lights
pointed at the widow. From the beginning, law enforcers believed
she was responsible. Yet the probe got off to a balky start,
stymied for several months by a lack of definitive evidence.
The break in the case came from the usual
place: the suspect's mouth. And it would lead to the undeniable
conclusion that Susan Grund may have been sexy, but she wasn't
On July 4, a month before the murder, a 9mm
pistol was stolen from the home of David Grund, Jimmy's son.
Coincidentally, Susan had stopped by David's
house that same afternoon and questioned her stepson about where
he kept his pistol. When David returned from a fireworks show that
night, he discovered that someone had broken in and taken nothing
but the gun.
It seemed like an odd coincidence when
investigators found a 9mm shell casing beside Jimmy Grund's body.
Investigator Brunson spoke with David Grund,
who recalled once firing his pistol at a telephone pole. Police
retrieved that slug and compared it to the bullet that had killed
It was a match. David Grund's stolen gun had
been used to murder his father.
Within days of the slaying, Susan Grund began
the process of trying to collect a $250,000 life insurance policy
and to have herself declared executrix of her late husband's
estate. Grund's children, David and Jama, filed a lawsuit to block
Susan from being named executrix. They found allies in the case
investigators, including Jimmy Grund's best friend, Sgt. Gary
Nichols, who made it his mission to see that she would never get a
penny of Jimmy's money.
In the meantime, Susan had a niggling secret
problem: the murder weapon was still in the Grund house.
She knew it would be discovered eventually and
that she had to get it out of the house, but she was fearful to
the point of paranoia that she was being watched. She needed help.
On September. 2, she confided in her sister,
Darlene Worden, and mother, Nellie Sanders.
"I killed Jimmy," Susan said.
She said the murder weapon, a 9mm pistol, was
hidden inside a Christmas teddy bear stored with holiday ornaments
in the laundry closet.
Worden agreed to go into the house and retrieve
the heavy teddy bear. The sisters and their mother then placed the
gun at the bottom of a metal pot and covered it with 70 pounds of
They stored the object at a nephew's house.
Later, Nellie Sanders got nervous and managed to single-handedly
lug the entombed murder weapon up to the attic of her house.
Darlene Worden sat on her sister's secret for
On November 2, she bumped into Bob Brinson, the
lead investigator on the case for the Indiana State Patrol.
Stricken by a guilty conscience, she felt compelled to confess.
Within 36 hours, police arrested Susan for murder. The motive,
they said, was the insurance policy money.
Police went looking for the concrete-filled pot
at the nephew's place, at Darlene's suggestion, but it had
vanished. Even without the murder weapon, prosecutor Wil Siders
prepared his case for trial in the fall of 1993.
About 10 weeks before jury selection was to
begin, Nellie Sanders' conscience provided what seemed to be the
final break in the case.
Nellie explained that she had hidden the murder
weapon in the attic of her house. Police found it there, just as
Trial and Error
Susan Grund's murder trial, which began on
September 27, 1993, was a Freudian psychoanalyst's dream, with
family secretsor alleged family secretsas the crucible of
The usual complement of cops and crime-scene
experts testified. But the trial's best tabloid TV moments came
from relatives of the victim and the accused. Susan Grund had to
testify, of course, to try to explain why she had hidden the gun.
She came up with a doozy of an explanation.
Susan testified that she arrived home of the
night of the murder, found her husband dead and called 911. She
said the murder weapon was lying on the floor. She recognized it
as David Grund's gun, so she said hid it inside a teddy bear
because "I thought he might have had something to do with it."
When questioned further, she blurted out
through tears that she was concerned for David "because we'd had
an affair." She explained that she had been having sex with her
stepson for two years.
She added, "He said he was going to get rid of
David Grund had finished undergraduate school
at Indiana University a few months before the trial began. When he
got his turn on the witness stand, Grund treated his stepmother's
assertions with steely contempt. The first words he spoke were, "I
never had an affair with that woman."
Nellie Sanders and Darlene Worden added their
own damning assessments of their kin. Darlene said of sister
Susan, "She's a liar. She's always been a liar."
At end of her testimony, Darlene broke down,
glared at her sister and said, "Why'd you do it?"
Everyone in the courtroom seemed convinced of
Susan's guiltexcept certain jurors. After 15 hours of
deliberation, the jury declared itself deadlocked, with at least
two members insisting they could not find Susan guilty.
A second trial was mounted seven months later,
in March 1994.
Prosecutor Siders made a key change in his
presentation, based upon suggestions from interviews he conducted
with jurors from the first trial. He called a procession of five
new witnesses, all prominent Indianans who had become acquainted
with Susan through Jimmy Grund.
Each gave the same clear message: Susan Grund
was a pathological liar.
Meanwhile, defense attorney Charlie Scruggs,
from Kokomo, made a momentous decision of his own. He ordered
Susan not to delve into her alleged affair with David Grundeven
though most courtroom wags agreed that that particularly testimony
had swayed the holdout jurors in her favor at the first trial.
Siders' strategy prevailed.
On March 23, 1994, the jury convicted Susan
Grund of murder. Prosecutors had not sought capital punishment in
the case, and three weeks later, Judge John Surbek ordered Susan
to serve 60 years in prison for "calmly, coldly and calculatingly"
murdering her husband.
Susan's children, Jacob and Tanelle, were 13
and 8, respectively, at the time of the murder. They were raised
by Jimmy Grund's sister, Jane, and her husband, Fred Allen.
By the fall of 2007, Grund had spent 15 years
at the Indiana Women's Prison in Indianapolis, housed with some
325 other female inmates. She will turn 50 behind bars in 2008.
Her first parole eligibility date will not arrive until 2025, when
she would be 67 years old.
At last word, she was still professing her
When her parole date arrives, Susan likely will
face a vigorous legal argument against freedom by a man with a
keen interest in the case.
David Grund, her former stepson and the man she
alleged was her lover, completed law school a few years after the
second trial. In 1997, he joined his grandfather in the family law
practice in Peru.
Supreme Court of Indiana
GRUND v. STATE
671 N.E.2d 411 (1996)
Susan GRUND, Appellant (Defendant Below),
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).
August 7, 1996.
Susan K. Carpenter, Public
Defender, David P. Freund, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis,
Pamela Carter, Attorney General, Cynthia L.
Ploughe, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, for Appellee.
The defendant, Susan Grund ("Susan"), was
convicted of murdering1 her husband, James Grund ("Jim"). The
trial court sentenced her to sixty years, the maximum term of
years for murder.2 She now appeals from the conviction and the
sentence and raises the following three issues: (1) whether the
trial court erred by allowing hearsay evidence, (2) whether
defendant was denied her Constitutional right to effective
assistance of counsel, and (3) whether imposition of the maximum
sentence was manifestly unreasonable.
[ 671 N.E.2d 414 ]
We affirm both the conviction and the sentence.
In the spring and summer of 1992, Susan and Jim
Grund were experiencing marital problems. They were arguing
frequently, and they were seeing a marriage counselor. Although
there was some talk of divorce, this was not what Susan wanted.
Because her husband was a prominent attorney, she feared losing
custody of the children, and she feared losing Jim's financial
support. Thus, Susan needed an alternative solution.
On the afternoon of July 4, 1992, Susan arrived
unexpectedly at the home of David Grund, the victim's son by a
previous marriage. She had been at the county fairgrounds, and as
she returned home, she stopped in, claiming to have found a new
shortcut home from the fairgrounds. Defendant questioned David
about a handgun that he had recently purchased. David showed her
where he kept his 9 mm semi-automatic weapon, and allowed her to
handle it. Before leaving, defendant noticed that the storm door
was broken and was secured by a shoestring. Defendant also
inquired about where David and his girlfriend, Suzane, kept their
rottweiler puppy when no one was at home.
Around 2:00 p.m. that day, David and Suzane
attended a barbecue at the home of Suzane's parents. Defendant and
her husband, along with their two children, thirteen-year-old
Jacob and seven-year-old Tanelle, arrived around 4:00 p.m. and
stayed until around 6:00 p.m. Shortly before dark, defendant
telephoned Suzane's parents to find out if David and Suzane
planned to attend the fireworks display. She was told that David
was not feeling well, so they would be staying at Suzane's
parents' home for a while longer, then they would return home.
When David and Suzane arrived home around 10:30 p.m., they found
that their home had been burglarized. Although cash and jewelry
were in plain sight, the only thing missing was David's gun.
Meanwhile, Susan had taken her two children and several other boys
to see the fireworks. Unfortunately, when they got there, Susan
was unable to find a place to park. She dropped off the boys and
kept Tanelle with her. They rendezvoused at the ice cream stand
shortly after the fireworks were over.
On August 3, 1992, defendant arranged for Jacob
to spend the night with his cousin, Steven, in the newly acquired
family camper. She also arranged for Steven's sister, Andrea, to
spend the night at her home with Tanelle. At approximately 10:00
p.m., she left the two boys at the campground. Now alone,
defendant went to obtain beverages for the boys. About an hour
later, she picked up the girls at her mother's house, and the
three arrived at the camper around 11:15 p.m. She gave the
beverages to the boys and took the girls home.
Just prior to midnight, defendant called the
Miami County emergency phone number to request an ambulance. She
told the dispatcher that she had found her husband lying on the
couch in the bedroom with blood coming out of his eyes and mouth.
Jim Grund was already dead when the emergency workers arrived. The
cause of death was a single gunshot wound to the head. Although
there were no signs of struggle, there were two open suitcases on
the floor with women's clothing strewn around them, and several
dresser drawers were open with items pulled out. There were no
signs of forced entry.
Detectives found a spent shell casing on the
floor and recovered a spent bullet from the couch in the area
where Jim's head had been. Both appeared to be from a 9 mm
semi-automatic handgun. The detectives were aware that a similar
weapon recently had been stolen from David's house. The next
morning, they asked David for locations where he might have fired
the weapon. As a result of this questioning, police recovered a
bullet from a telephone pole which was located across the street
from David's former residence. This bullet and the one recovered
from the murder scene had been fired from the same gun.
[ 671 N.E.2d 415 ]
Approximately two weeks after the murder,
Susan, Jacob, Tanelle, and Susan's mother moved from Peru to
Vincennes. On September 3, a former neighbor informed Susan that
police were searching her home in Peru. That night, she met her
sister, Darlene Worden, at a McDonald's near Indianapolis. As the
two women drove to Peru, Susan confessed that she had killed her
husband. According to defendant, it was supposed to be a double
suicide, but she had been unable to kill herself. She claimed that
instead of shooting himself, Jim made her shoot him so that his
will would remain effective.
When Susan and her sister arrived at Susan's
Peru home, defendant went directly to the laundry room, and told
Darlene that "it" was still there. When they left the house, Susan
was carrying two teddy bears, one of which had been ripped open
across the back. She later admitted that she removed the gun from
the house by hiding it in one of the bears. Susan then returned to
Vincennes. Sometime later, Darlene's husband brought a bag of
cement to her in Vincennes.
Around the beginning of November, Darlene
happened to see the detective who was investigating the murder.
Darlene believed that her mother was aware of Susan's actions, and
she feared repercussions, both for herself and for her mother. She
also believed that the gun was in Susan's home, and she was
concerned for the children's safety. As a result, Darlene told the
detective about Susan's confession. Susan was arrested on November
The next summer, when Susan's mother was
planning to move back to Peru, she found a family heirloom, a
large copper kettle, in the attic. It was filled with cement. She
took it back to Peru and gave it to the police. When police broke
the cement, they found a 9 mm semi-automatic weapon, the same gun
which had been stolen from David's house and used to kill Jim
I. Hearsay Testimony
Defendant argues that the trial court erred in
admitting various hearsay testimony. Not surprisingly, the
testimony of these witnesses does not fit the defendant's version
of events. Defendant's arguments in this regard evoke the words of
Sir Walter Scott:
O, what a tangled web we weave when first we
practise to deceive.3
At trial, defendant's sister, Darlene,
testified about a discussion she had with Susan, Tanelle, and
Jacob, which involved the events on the Fourth of July. According
to Darlene, Tanelle told the others that after the boys were
dropped off to see the fireworks, she and her mother did not go
straight to the ice cream parlor as her mother claimed, but
instead went for a drive in the country. Susan then repeatedly
insisted that Tanelle's story was not correct. Defense counsel
objected to Darlene's testimony on the basis of hearsay. The State
argued that Tanelle's statements were not offered for the truth of
the matter asserted, but rather to show that they were
contradicted by Susan. The trial judge overruled the objection and
allowed the testimony. Defendant now appeals, arguing that the
only possible relevance of Tanelle's statements is for the truth
of the matter asserted; if Tanelle's statements are correct then
defendant would have had an opportunity to steal David's gun.
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to
prove the truth of the matter asserted. IND.EVIDENCE RULE 801(c);
Hughes v. State,546 N.E.2d 1203 (Ind.1989). The same statement
offered for another purpose is not hearsay. Blue v. Brooks, 261
Ind. 338, 303 N.E.2d 269 (1973). Tanelle's statements were not
offered to prove that the defendant and Tanelle took a drive in
the country, but rather to prove that Susan was trying to coerce
Tanelle into changing her memory. Such action is relevant to show
defendant's consciousness of guilt. Grimes v. State,450 N.E.2d
512, 521 (Ind.1983). The State also introduced evidence that the
defendant tried to coerce other family members into changing their
stories about the night of the murder. (R. at 988 (Darlene
discussing the hour time gap in Susan's whereabouts and getting
"these stories straight" to account for Susan's time); R. at
1291-92 (Jacob discussing the same time gap and how his
[ 671 N.E.2d 416 ]
mother would "correct us, so it wouldn't sound
as bad")). The contradiction of Tanelle's statements shows that
defendant acted similarly regarding both important time periods in
this case, thus ensnaring her entire family in the tangled web of
Furthermore, even if Tanelle's statements had
amounted to hearsay, such an erroneous admission would not warrant
reversal in this case because Darlene's testimony was merely
cumulative. Hicks v. State,536 N.E.2d 496, 499 (Ind.1989); Rhoton
v. State,483 N.E.2d 51, 54 (Ind.1985). Jacob also testified to the
substance of Tanelle's out-of-court statements, and he did so
without objection by defense counsel.
We find that Tanelle's statements were not
admitted for the truth of the matter asserted, and are not
hearsay. Furthermore, had the statements been hearsay, we would
find no reversible error as Darlene's testimony regarding these
statements was merely cumulative.
II. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Susan contends that she was denied her
Constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. Review of
ineffective assistance of counsel claims involves a two-step
process. The "appellant must make a preliminary showing that the
performance of his trial counsel was deficient; he must then show
that he suffered prejudice as a result." Pemberton v. State,560
N.E.2d 524, 526 (Ind.1990) (discussing Strickland v.
Washington,466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)).
Counsel is presumed to be competent; "[i]solated poor strategy,
inexperience, or bad tactics do not necessarily amount to
ineffectiveness of counsel." Id.
Defendant first argues that defense counsel's
performance was deficient when he failed to object to Jacob's
testimony concerning Tanelle's Fourth of July statements.
Defendant argues that this could not have been a strategy
decision, since defense counsel already had objected to Darlene's
testimony on the same topic. However, since the objection to
Darlene's testimony already had been overruled, we cannot say that
failure to object once again was deficient performance. See Drake
v. State,563 N.E.2d 1286, 1290 (Ind.1990) (holding that failure to
make repeated objections is not ineffective when such objections
would not have been sustained). Even assuming that this behavior
was deficient, we cannot find prejudice. As discussed above,
Tanelle's statements were not offered for the truth of the matter
asserted and were properly admissible when Darlene testified about
them. The same is true for Jacob's testimony concerning Tanelle's
Related to the above argument, defendant claims
that her counsel should have requested a limiting instruction for
Darlene's and Jacob's testimony concerning Tanelle's statements.
While defendant would have been entitled to a limiting instruction
had defense counsel requested it, EVID.R. 105, defendant has
failed to demonstrate prejudice as a result. Contrary to
defendant's assertions, there is other evidence which is
sufficient to demonstrate that she had an opportunity to steal
David's gun on the Fourth of July. Although defendant testified
that she parked across the street from the ice cream parlor and
waited with Tanelle for the boys, Jacob testified that his mother
and Tanelle were not at the ice cream stand when he and the other
boys arrived, but she arrived there after a while. (R. at 1296).
Jacob's testimony contradicted Susan's account, and provided Susan
with the opportunity to steal David's gun. Thus, defendant has
failed to demonstrate prejudice.
Defendant's next argument involves testimony
about a 1990 burglary at defendant's Peru home. Indiana State
Police Detective Robert Brinson testified that he had investigated
this prior burglary. He also testified that he had interrogated
defendant the morning following the murder. During this
interrogation, defendant stated that she believed that some
jewelry was missing from the dresser. Curiously, many of the same
jewelry items which Susan believed to be missing at the time of
the murder had also been reported missing in the 1990 burglary.
Detective Brinson further testified that he did not believe a
"true" burglary had taken place the night of the murder. Defense
counsel did not object to this line of questioning until the
prosecutor questioned Detective
[ 671 N.E.2d 417 ]
Brinson regarding Susan's whereabouts when the
1990 burglary occurred. Following the objection, defense counsel
filed a Motion in Limine and a Motion to Strike. The Motion in
Limine requested an order to prohibit the State from introducing
any further evidence or making further mention of the 1990
burglary. The Motion to Strike requested the trial court to strike
all testimony concerning the 1990 burglary, and to admonish the
jury to disregard it. (R. at 190). Both motions were denied.4
It is true that evidence of extrinsic crimes of
a defendant is not admissible solely to prove a defendant's
criminal propensity or that the defendant acted in conformity with
that propensity. EVID.R. 404(b); Hardin v. State,611 N.E.2d 123,
129 (Ind.1993). However, the evidence presented prior to the
objection did not involve extrinsic crimes of the defendant.
Defendant admits that the State "made no meaningful attempt,
whatsoever, to establish that Susan Grund had anything to do with
the commission of the 1990 burglary." (Appellant's Brief at 49).
Rather, evidence that the two burglaries were "mirror images"
raises the inference that Susan copied the earlier one to make it
look like a burglar killed her husband. Because the prosecutor did
not link defendant with the earlier burglary, admission of the
evidence did not violate EVID.R. 404(b). Thus, counsel's
performance was not deficient when he failed to object.
Defendant next argues that trial counsel was
ineffective because he failed to raise objections to hearsay
evidence presented during the testimony of Indiana State Police
Officer Gary Boyles. Boyles was allowed to testify about
statements made to him by David Grund regarding David's
whereabouts the night of the murder and where David may have fired
his gun prior to it being stolen. However, David's statements were
not admitted for the truth of the matter asserted, but rather to
show the course of the investigator's conduct. Long v. State,582
N.E.2d 361, 362 (Ind.1991).
In Craig v. State,630 N.E.2d 207 (Ind. 1994),
we set out a three-step analysis to be used when examining such a
hearsay objection, which requires analysis of the following
1. Does the testimony or written evidence
describe an out-of-court statement asserting a fact susceptible of
being true or false?
. . . . . .
2. What is the evidentiary purpose of the
. . . . . .
3. Is the fact to be proved under the suggested
purpose for the statement relevant to some issue in the case, and
does any danger of prejudice outweigh its probative value?
Id. at 211. Clearly, the testimony did contain
statements asserting facts susceptible of being true or false. The
evidentiary purpose of the statements was to demonstrate the
source of the bullets which proved to be a ballistic match to the
one recovered from the murder scene. Thus, the purpose was not for
the truth of the matter asserted. Such evidence is relevant as
foundation for the bullets. Finally, since David's statements do
not incriminate anyone, we do not think that the danger of
prejudice outweighs its probative value. Furthermore, David
testified at trial and was available for cross-examination. Since
a hearsay objection would not have been sustained, counsel was not
ineffective for failing to object.
Officer Boyles was also allowed to read a
search warrant and probable cause affidavit for Susan's Vincennes
home, and defendant now contends that trial counsel should have
objected to this reading due to the presence of hearsay in the
affidavit. Search warrants and probable cause affidavits, although
potentially admissible, should
[ 671 N.E.2d 418 ]
be presented only to the court and not to the
jury. Guajardo v. State,496 N.E.2d 1300 (Ind.1986). However,
presentation to the jury is not reversible error per se. Id. In
the present case, we agree that defense counsel should have
objected to the State's reading of the affidavit to the jury, but,
as in Guajardo, no prejudice resulted. The hearsay contained in
the affidavit consisted of statements of Darlene Worden and David
Grund. At trial, both of these individuals testified and were
available for cross-examination, and both testified consistently
with their statements to police. Thus, the jury learned nothing
from the affidavit that they did not learn from other sources.
Since the comments in the search warrant and probable cause
affidavit were merely cumulative, any error was harmless. See,
e.g., Tynes v. State,650 N.E.2d 685, 688 (Ind.1995).
Finally, defendant argues that the trial
counsel failed to object to evidence that Susan and Jim Grund were
having marital problems, particularly to evidence that Susan had
hit her husband. However, defense counsel did object when the
subject was first raised, during the testimony of Pam Oglesby, a
neighbor of the Grunds. (R. at 1243-53). At a hearing outside the
presence of the jury, the State argued that evidence concerning
the state of the marriage was relevant to show motive. The trial
court overruled the objection, but limited any inquiry to within
one year of the murder. See Heck v. State,552 N.E.2d 446
(Ind.1990), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 929, 113 S.Ct. 1308, 122
L.Ed.2d 696 (1993) (although hearsay, evidence of a prior assault
on the victim can be admissible in a murder case to prove motive
or identity). When questioning resumed, defense counsel again
objected. When this objection was overruled, he requested "the
record to show my continuing objection to this line of
questioning." (R. at 1253). Although it is true that the defendant
objected only sporadically when other witnesses testified on the
same subject, given the continuing objection and the result of
prior objections, we do not find trial counsel's performance to be
deficient in this regard.
Thus, defendant has failed to demonstrate a
single instance where trial counsel's performance was deficient
and caused prejudice pursuant to the Strickland standard.
Accordingly, we reject defendant's claim of ineffective assistance
Defendant argues that the trial court erred by
considering improper aggravators and failing to consider
mitigators. Defendant also argues that a maximum sentence of sixty
years is manifestly unreasonable in this case. Thus, defendant
requests this Court to revise the sentence.
The trial court found the following aggravating
1. Defendant's prior criminal history.
2. Defendant's need for correction.
3. A lesser sentence would depreciate the
seriousness of the offense.
(R. at 242, 2005-06), and found no mitigating
circumstances. (R. at 242, 2005). The court then imposed the
maximum sentence of sixty years.
Sentencing is within the sound discretion of
the trial court, and this Court will review sentencing only for
abuse of discretion. Sims v. State,585 N.E.2d 271 (Ind. 1992). A
sentence authorized by statute will not be revised except where
manifestly unreasonable. A sentence is manifestly unreasonable
only if no reasonable person could find such sentence appropriate
to the particular offender and offense for which it was imposed.
Id.; IND.APPELLATE RULE 17(B). When a trial court increases a
sentence due to aggravating circumstances, the factors in making
that determination must be listed in the record. Sylvester v.
State,549 N.E.2d 37, 43 (Ind.1990). The finding of mitigating
factors is not mandatory and rests within the sound discretion of
the trial court. Finally, it is for the trial judge to determine
the sentencing weight to be given any aggravating or mitigating
Defendant does not challenge the first
aggravator, prior criminal history. Defendant has a prior
conviction in a case involving the beating of a young child. This
child, the son of a former husband, suffered various injuries, and
is now severely handicapped. Although the defendant entered a nolo
[ 671 N.E.2d 419 ]
plea, the conviction is sufficient to support
Defendant does challenge the other two
aggravators. She argues that the second aggravator, defendant's
need for correction, is a mere recitation of the language of an
aggravating circumstance listed in I.C. ß 35-38-1-7.1(b).
Defendant claims that the trial court made no attempt to set out
facts to support this aggravator, nor did that court indicate why
additional punishment is needed in this case. Defendant's argument
is in error. The trial court specifically related this aggravator
to defendant's criminal history, finding that there is a need for
correction. This prior criminal history represents "a refusal of
the defendant to conform to societal rules." (R. at 2005). As we
find this to be more than a mere recital of the statutory
language, we find no error with this aggravator. See Penick v.
State,659 N.E.2d 484, 487 (Ind.1995).
Next, defendant argues that the third
aggravator, a lesser sentence would depreciate the seriousness of
the offense, is improper because this aggravator is applicable
only when the trial court is considering a reduced sentence.
Defendant is correct that this statutory aggravator is appropriate
only when considering the imposition of a sentence which is
shorter than the presumptive. Walton v. State,650 N.E.2d 1134,
1136-37 (Ind.1995). Thus, the trial court improperly applied this
Defendant also argues that the court erred in
failing to find mitigating circumstances which are clearly
supported by the record. The finding of mitigating circumstances
is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Aguirre v.
State,552 N.E.2d 473, 476 (Ind.1990). However, when there is
substantial evidence in the record of the existence of significant
mitigating circumstances and the trial court fails to find
mitigating circumstances, this Court will conclude that they were
overlooked or not properly considered. Scheckel v. State,620
N.E.2d 681, 686 (Ind.1993). Defendant claims that the trial court
overlooked several such mitigators, including: imprisonment of
their mother would impose a substantial hardship on defendant's
children, defendant's activity in civic affairs, and that a number
of people in the community found defendant to be of good character
and they requested mercy on her behalf.
First, incarceration is not the cause of the
hardship on defendant's children. Defendant murdered the
children's father, thus removing him from their lives. Therefore,
we cannot find error in the trial court's failure to find hardship
to be a mitigating factor. Similarly, although the defendant may
have been involved in community activity, her husband had been a
civic leader. Thus, although she may have given to the community,
her actions also took much away from the community. See Brooks v.
State,560 N.E.2d 49, 61 (Ind.1990) (sentencing order not defective
for failing to recognize community service work with children as a
mitigating factor where defendant was convicted of child
molestation). Finally, it is within the sound discretion of the
trial court to find no mitigator although a number of people found
defendant to be of good character. See Magers v. State,621 N.E.2d
323 (Ind.1993) (sentencing court not obligated to accept
defendant's version of what constitutes mitigating circumstances).
This is especially true given that others requested the trial
court to impose the maximum sentence. (R. at 199, 1941, 1947,
1948, 1950). As there are no mitigators which are clearly and
uncontrovertedly supported by the record, we find no error with
the trial court in failing to find mitigating circumstances.
Only one aggravator is necessary in order for
the trial court to impose an enhanced sentence. Reaves v.
State,586 N.E.2d 847, 852 (Ind.1992); Fugate v. State,608 N.E.2d
1370, 1374 (Ind.1993). Thus, defendant's prior criminal history
and her need for correction are sufficient to support the enhanced
sentence. With two valid aggravators and no mitigators, we cannot
find that an enhanced sentence is manifestly unreasonable.
conviction and sentence are affirmed.
[ 671 N.E.2d 420 ]
SHEPARD, C.J., and DeBRULER and DICKSON, JJ.,
SULLIVAN, J., concurs in the result.