ILNews

Indecision over peremptory challenge waives defendant’s ability to appeal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A defense counsel’s courtroom debate over how to use his final peremptory strike prohibited the defendant from appealing the trial court decision to retain a juror who raised concerns about impartiality.

Gary Oswalt appealed his convictions and aggregate 84-year sentence for two counts of child molesting as Class A felonies, child solicitation as a Class D felony, and five counts of possession of child pornography as Class D felonies.  

Oswalt argued the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to remove Juror No. 28 for cause after the defense had exhausted its peremptory strikes. He maintained that juror should have been removed because during questioning the juror told the court he could not be fair and was not comfortable hearing the case.

The state countered Oswalt had not used all his peremptory challenges when the court denied his request to strike Juror No. 28. After the court denied Oswalt’s counsel’s motion to strike, the attorney had an audible conversation over whether to use his last peremptory strike to remove Juror No. 25 or Juror No. 28 before deciding to remove the former.

Therefore, the state concluded, Oswalt waived appellate review because he had not exhausted his peremptory challenge at the time that the court denied his request to strike Juror No. 28 for cause.

In Gary Oswalt v. State of Indiana, 35A02-1208-CR-684, the Indiana Court of Appeals agreed with the state. It found that Oswalt had failed to exhaust his peremptory strikes at the time he tried to remove Juror No. 28.  

However, in a footnote, the Court of Appeals stated it might have ruled differently if the defense had not debated how to use the final peremptory challenge. According to the COA, the record demonstrated that when Oswalt asked the court if he had used his last preempt, the court affirmed.

If this had been the extent of the discussion, the COA stated it would agree that Oswalt had exhausted his peremptory strikes. However, the record went on to show defense counsel then debated how to use his final strike, indicating he was aware he had not used all his peremptory challenges.  

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. Contact Lea Shelemey attorney in porter county Indiana. She just helped us win our case...she is awesome...

  2. We won!!!! It was a long expensive battle but we did it. I just wanted people to know it is possible. And if someone can point me I. The right direction to help change the way the courts look as grandparents as only grandparents. The courts assume the parent does what is in the best interest of the child...and the court is wrong. A lot of the time it is spite and vindictiveness that separates grandparents and grandchildren. It should not have been this long and hard and expensive...Something needs to change...

  3. Typo on # of Indiana counties

  4. The Supreme Court is very proud that they are Giving a billion dollar public company from Texas who owns Odyssey a statewide monopoly which consultants have said is not unnecessary but worse they have already cost Hoosiers well over $100 MILLION, costing tens of millions every year and Odyssey is still not connected statewide which is in violation of state law. The Supreme Court is using taxpayer money and Odyssey to compete against a Hoosier company who has the only system in Indiana that is connected statewide and still has 40 of the 82 counties despite the massive spending and unnecessary attacks

  5. Here's a recent resource regarding steps that should be taken for removal from the IN sex offender registry. I haven't found anything as comprehensive as of yet. Hopefully this is helpful - http://www.chjrlaw.com/removal-indiana-sex-offender-registry/

ADVERTISEMENT