ILNews

COA divided on whether 'bully' comments require new trial

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals split in affirming a man’s drunk-driving conviction, with the dissenting judge finding the prosecutor’s questions to the jury and repeated reference to the defendant as a bully at trial made a fair trial impossible.

In Martin Roy Emerson v. State of Indiana, No. 07A01-1009-CR-486, Martin Emerson appealed his convictions of Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated and Class C felony operating a vehicle while driving privileges are forfeited for life. A Nashville police officer clocked a van going more than 40 mph over the speed limit. She saw a man driving the van, and when she tried to pull the car over, the driver pulled into a driveway. As she came upon the vehicle, she saw the man sitting in the passenger seat and a woman getting into the car through the driver’s side door. That woman, Sophia Morgan, told the officer that the man, Emerson, was driving and made her switch seats. Emerson screamed at the officer and wasn’t compliant with her commands, so he was eventually handcuffed. Emerson smelled of alcohol. He later admitted at jail he had been drinking.

The Court of Appeals affirmed his felony conviction of operating a vehicle while driving privileges are forfeited for life. But the judges disagreed as to whether the prosecutor’s comments during voir dire and opening and closing statements regarding bullies was a fundamental error requiring a new trial. Emerson didn’t object to the statements during trial.

During voir dire, the prosecutor asked prospective jurors questions such as if they would do something just because a bully told them to, and if they would believe a statement was true just because a bully said it. During opening and closing arguments, the prosecutor made comments like Emerson “tried to bully his way out of it” and the jurors should “stand up to this bully and tell him that he committed a crime with a verdict of guilty.”

Judges Cale Bradford and Nancy Vaidik didn’t believe the prosecutor’s improper, but fleeting, request that the jury stand up to the defendant made it impossible for Emerson to receive a fair trial. They also found the prosecutor’s comments were relevant to the case and were clear that the statements amounted to nothing more than his opinion.

Senior Judge Betty Barteau disagreed, finding the statements taken as a whole conditioned the jury to conclude that Emerson was a person of poor character and encouraged the jury to stand up to him and find him guilty because of perceived character flaws rather than because he committed the offense at issue.

She would reverse his OWI conviction and recommend he be retried. She would allow his conviction for operating a vehicle while driving privileges are forfeited for life to stand because the trial court provided new preliminary and final jury instructions for that phase of the trial and the state did not characterize Emerson as a bully during that portion of the trial.

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. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT