COA affirms mistrial denial

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld a trial court's decision to deny a motion for mistrial and affirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence.

In Michael Hale v. State of Indiana, 43A05-0611-CR-647, Hale appealed his conviction for dealing in cocaine as a Class A felony and his 50-year sentence. He claimed the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial because he argued testimony from a witness implied Hale was previously involved in drug activity.

Lance Patrick and Josh Hamilton were asked by the Kosciusko County Drug Task Force to act as confidential informants to have their drug charges reduced or dropped. The pair agreed and met Hale, who they learned would sell them cocaine. Patrick and Hamilton went to Hale's home, and when Hamilton - who was wearing a recording device - came to the door, Hale sent him away saying he didn't trust him. Hamilton sent Patrick to purchase the drugs from Hale.

Hale was arrested the next day and both Patrick and Hamilton testified at the trial. Hamilton told the prosecutor that Hale didn't trust him "because he told me that his best friend wore a wire on him before." Defense counsel objected and the response was struck from the record. Later, Hamilton testified that Dustin Slone, who was sitting in the courtroom, had threatened him about his testimony at trial. Hamilton said Sloan called him that morning and told him not to testify or he would beat him. It wasn't until after Hamilton's questioning was complete that the trial court, outside the presence of the jury, asked for Slone to be escorted out. At that time, the defense counsel moved for a mistrial due to Hamilton's testimony.

The trial court denied that, and a jury found Hale guilty.

Hale appealed, saying the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial because Hale believes Hamilton's testimony that Hale said his best friend had worn a wire implied that Hale was previously involved in drug activity. Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote in the opinion that Hale failed to show that the trial court's action of striking Hamilton's response was insufficient to rectify the situation.

Hale also argued his motion for mistrial should have been granted because of Hamilton's testimony that Slone threatened him the morning of the trial. Defense counsel did not object immediately after Hamilton made the comment, nor did they during redirect or cross-examination of Hamilton. It was only after a 10-minute recess and after Slone had been escorted out that the defense counsel moved for a mistrial on the basis of Hamilton's testimony.

Because Hale did not object to the testimony regarding Slone's threat during trial, he did not give the trial court a chance to rule on the admissibility of such evidence. His motion for mistrial came after Hamilton's testimony was complete, so Hale has waived this issue for review, Judge Vaidik wrote.

The court affirmed the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hale's motion for a mistrial. The court also affirmed his conviction, citing sufficient evidence; his sentence is also appropriate, given Hale's 26 previous misdemeanor cases and prison time for dealing in cocaine.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?