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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT