ILNews

Prosecutor misconduct leads to reversal

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a defendant's conviction of intimidation because several acts of misconduct constituted fundamental error. The appellate court also ruled the man could be retried on the charge.

In Marlow J. Lainhart v. State of Indiana, No. 24A01-0904-CR-184, Marlow Lainhart appealed his Class A misdemeanor conviction of intimidation, in which he was found guilty of communicating a threat to another person with intent to place the victim in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act.

The charge stemmed from an incident in October 2007 in which Lainhart saw former friend Derek Durham talking on the side of the road to three women he knew while they were in their car. Lainhart called his father Kenny, and as the women were driving, Kenny drove his car into the back of their car. Threats were allegedly made toward the three women by Lainhart and his father. Two of the women went to the police and filed written statements about the incident.

On appeal, Lainhart challenged the prosecutor's actions and statements during voir dire and at trial. Even though he failed to object to any of the alleged misconduct at his trial, the appellate court reviewed the matter for fundamental error.

The prosecutor improperly distinguished the roles of the defense and prosecution in criminal cases during voir dire, the appellate court found. The prosecutor's statements to jurors exalted his own responsibility as a truth-seeker while degrading the role of defense counsel, wrote Judge Nancy Vaidik.

The prosecutor's reference to the possible punishment Lainhart could face if convicted was also improper, as well as the prosecutor's commentary during cross-examination and closing argument on Lainhart's failure to call defense witnesses. It's improper for a prosecutor to suggest a defendant must bear the burden of proof in a criminal matter, wrote the judge.

Finally, the Court of Appeals concluded the prosecutor's comments during jury selection and closing arguments pertaining to police officer credibility constituted improper indoctrination, vouching, and commentary on the justness of the cause.

Each of these improper comments or actions on their own may not result in fundamental error, but the cumulative effect of the misconduct made a fair trial impossible, the judges ruled.

The Court of Appeals reversed Lainhart's conviction, but found there was sufficient evidence for him to be retried if the state desired to do so. To clear up an issue that may arise on remand, the appellate court ruled the trial court erred by not issuing a unanimity instruction on the charge Lainhart faced. He was charged with unlawfully knowingly or intentionally communicating a threat to another person: Ruth Schreier, Jaime Baker, and/or Amy Robertson, with the intent that the other person be placed in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act. The trial court should have instructed jurors that they had to reach a unanimous verdict as to which crime, if any, Lainhart committed, wrote the judge.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT