No fundamental error in jury seeing previously dismissed counts

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals relied in part on two decades-old cases from the state Supreme Court to find that exposing the jury to dismissed charges did not deprive a defendant of a fundamentally fair trial.

In Eriberto Quiroz v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-1107-CR-577, Eriberto Quiroz appealed his convictions of Class A and Class C felony child molesting and argued that he was denied a fair trial when the jury was given a copy of the charging information which included counts that had been dismissed.

Quiroz, 27, had molested the six-year-old half-sister of his friend by pulling down the girl’s pants and licking her vagina. He also threatened her with a knife to not tell anyone.

The jury was given the charging information, which included two child molesting charges that were dismissed. He didn’t object at trial and the judge specifically instructed the jury that those two counts had been withdrawn and to not consider them when evaluating the other charges. Although the appellate court couldn’t find any Indiana case directly on point, it relied on Berry v. State, 196 Ind. 258, 148 N.E. 143 (1925), and Nordyke v. State, 213 Ind. 243, 11 N.E. 2d 165 (1937), as well as decisions from outside of Indiana to find there is no error in permitting the jury to have access to an information or indictment that has dismissed counts when the jury is also told that the dismissed counts aren’t to be considered or the charging instrument isn’t evidence.

“In short, while certainly not the best practice, the trial court did not commit fundamental error in including in the jury instructions a copy of the charging information that included the counts against Quiroz that had previously been dismissed,” wrote Judge Paul Mathias.

The judges ordered that Quiroz’s Class C felony conviction be vacated because the same act was used to support the Class C felony and Class A felony charges. The judges also upheld his 40-year sentence.



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.