ILNews

Court: stipulation can be in preliminary jury instructions

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Even though a defendant waived his argument for appeal that a stipulation may not be placed before a jury via preliminary jury instructions, the Indiana Court of Appeals held the opposite today in a case involving a conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

Fabian Morgan was convicted of the Class B felony and sentenced to 15 years. He argued there wasn’t enough evidence to prove he qualified as a serious violent felon. The state had to prove that he had been convicted of an offense listed in Indiana Code Ann. Section 35-47-4-5. Before trial, it appears based on the record that the parties had stipulated to the element of I.C. Section 35-47-4-5 that Morgan was previously convicted of a felony at the time he possessed the gun in the instant case, wrote Judge Ezra Friedlander.

The stipulation wasn’t introduced at trial and not included in the materials submitted in conjunction with the appeal, so Morgan claimed there was insufficient evidence to prove he was a serious violent felon. He waived this argument by not objecting to the jury instructions.

In Fabian Morgan v. State of Indiana, No. 49A04-1001-CR-43, the appellate court couldn’t find any authority for Morgan’s argument that a stipulation can’t be placed before a jury through preliminary jury instructions. The judges relied on Hardister v. State, 849 N.E.2d 563 (Ind. 2006), in which the Indiana Supreme Court ruled otherwise, to conclude that a stipulation may be presented before a jury in the form of a preliminary instruction. It may be challenged by a defendant who preserves the issue for appellate review, noted Judge Friedlander.

The judges also found the trial court didn’t commit fundamental error when it admonished the jury to disregard remarks made by Morgan’s attorney during final arguments that the court characterized as “misleading” and “not the evidence presented.” Morgan didn’t object to any of the trial court’s comments, and couldn’t show fundamental error occurred. The record shows the attorney did misstate the evidence.

The judges also upheld the 15-year sentence.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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