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.



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.