ILNews

COA affirms mistrial denial

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
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.
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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT