ILNews

Justices split in granting transfer

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court was split in its decision to deny transfer in a case in which a defendant claimed misconduct by the prosecutor when he read a poem about drugs during voir dire.

The justices were split 3-2 in favor of denying transfer in the case Robert R. Gregory v. State of Indiana, No. 15A01-0708-CR-348. Justice Robert Rucker dissented, and Justice Brent Dickson concurred with him, finding certain tactics used by the prosecutor during jury selection were improper and amounted to misconduct.

Robert Gregory was convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine and conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. Gregory appealed his convictions on four claims, including whether the prosecutor committed misconduct by reading a poem during voir dire about the dangers of methamphetamine. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed Gregory's manufacturing conviction, but ordered his conspiracy conviction to be vacated on double jeopardy grounds. The appellate court ruled the prosecutor didn't commit misconduct by reading the poem.

Justice Rucker wrote that although Gregory did not raise the misconduct issue in his transfer petition, the matter is sufficiently important to warrant the Supreme Court's attention. Justice Rucker agreed with Court of Appeals Judge James Kirsch's dissent that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the reading.

Referencing Perryman v. State, 830 N.E.2d 1005 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), in which the court reversed a defendant's drug conviction because of improper voir dire tactics, Justice Rucker wrote, "I see little daylight between the prosecutor's conduct in Perryman and the prosecutor's conduct here. Although I agree that in this case the defendant is not entitled to a new trial, the conduct exhibited by the prosecutor nonetheless should be disapproved."

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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT