ILNews

Prosecutor’s comments on defendant not testifying don’t require reversal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals, in addressing a defendant’s claims of prosecutorial misconduct, found that any misconduct committed was a harmless error and does not require criminal deviate conduct and sexual battery convictions to be overturned.

Craig Bakari Thomas sexually assaulted his classmate K.B. while the two were sitting in a car at a park. Thomas chose not to testify at his trial and was convicted of two counts of Class B felony criminal deviate conduct and one count of Class D felony sexual battery.

In Craig Bakari Thomas v. State of Indiana, 71A04-1305-CR-256, Thomas argued that two comments by a deputy prosecutor resulted in prosecutorial misconduct. Both referred to Thomas not testifying at the trial. The trial court issued an admonishment to the jury regarding the first comment made by the deputy prosecutor that said there is no other story, to disregard the fact that Thomas wasn’t sworn and didn’t testify. The judge did not issue an admonishment regarding the second comment, in which the deputy prosecutor said, “That’s not what the defendant is saying. The defendant is not saying ….” The judge required the deputy prosecutor to clarify that those statements referred to statements Thomas gave to police officers.

With respect to the first comment, the Court of Appeals agreed that the deputy prosecutor’s comments reasonably could be interpreted as an invitation to draw an adverse inference from Thomas’ silence. In fact, the deputy was suggesting that the jury draw an inference of guilt from Thomas’ decision to not be sworn in and tell his story. But the error was harmless, because the state could prove that the comment did not contribute to the verdict. The judge’s curative instruction defused the impact of the state’s improper remark, Judge Patricia Riley wrote.

The COA noted that the second comment did not amount to an indirect reference to Thomas’ decision to not testify.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT