ILNews

Father’s testimony at molestation trial not fundamental error

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld a Lake County man’s conviction of Class C felony child molesting, rejecting the defendant’s claims that some of the victim’s father’s testimony at trial resulted in fundamental error.

In Terrence T. Walker v. State of Indiana, 45A04-1208-CR-441, Terrence Walker raised three issues on appeal: the victim’s father made several inadmissible statements concerning Walker’s guilt, that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury on Class D felony sexual battery as a lesser-included offense, and that the trial court abused its discretion in replacing the only African-American juror after he was late for court.

Walker was on trial on charges of Class C felony child molesting involving fondling or touching and Class A felony child molesting involving sexual intercourse. He was accused of forcing his stepdaughters’ friend A.B. into the back of his car, where he got on top of her, pulled down her leggings and removed her underwear. The jury only found him guilty of the Class C felony charge.

Walker claimed that portions of A.B.’s father’s testimony on direct examination and cross-examination should be excluded, but since he did not object at trial, he argued on appeal that the statements made resulted in fundamental error. The trial judge told the jury to disregard an outburst the father had after direct examination.

The Court of Appeals found only one portion of the father’s testimony violated Ind. Evidence Rule 704(b), when a comment he made voluntarily implied that Walker was guilty. But this testimony did not deprive him of a fair trial because of other evidence. The judges ruled that some of the comments were invited error because they were in response to defense counsel questioning, and that the admonishment to the jury cured any error arising from the father’s initial outburst.

There was no fundamental error in not instructing the jury on Class D felony sexual battery because that offense is not an inherently nor a factually included offense of Class C felony child molesting as charged.

The judges also found no abuse of discretion in removing Juror 271, the only African-American on the panel, after he was two hours late for court. Walker doesn’t allege the juror was replaced based on racial discrimination nor present any facts to suggest that, but wants the COA to assume prejudice. The trial court attempted to reach the juror, but he did not respond to phone calls and they did not know if or when he would appear, so the trial court had reasons to replace him on the jury, the court ruled.

 

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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT