ILNews

Prosecutor’s comments on defendant not testifying don’t require reversal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals, in addressing a defendant’s claims of prosecutorial misconduct, found that any misconduct committed was a harmless error and does not require criminal deviate conduct and sexual battery convictions to be overturned.

Craig Bakari Thomas sexually assaulted his classmate K.B. while the two were sitting in a car at a park. Thomas chose not to testify at his trial and was convicted of two counts of Class B felony criminal deviate conduct and one count of Class D felony sexual battery.

In Craig Bakari Thomas v. State of Indiana, 71A04-1305-CR-256, Thomas argued that two comments by a deputy prosecutor resulted in prosecutorial misconduct. Both referred to Thomas not testifying at the trial. The trial court issued an admonishment to the jury regarding the first comment made by the deputy prosecutor that said there is no other story, to disregard the fact that Thomas wasn’t sworn and didn’t testify. The judge did not issue an admonishment regarding the second comment, in which the deputy prosecutor said, “That’s not what the defendant is saying. The defendant is not saying ….” The judge required the deputy prosecutor to clarify that those statements referred to statements Thomas gave to police officers.

With respect to the first comment, the Court of Appeals agreed that the deputy prosecutor’s comments reasonably could be interpreted as an invitation to draw an adverse inference from Thomas’ silence. In fact, the deputy was suggesting that the jury draw an inference of guilt from Thomas’ decision to not be sworn in and tell his story. But the error was harmless, because the state could prove that the comment did not contribute to the verdict. The judge’s curative instruction defused the impact of the state’s improper remark, Judge Patricia Riley wrote.

The COA noted that the second comment did not amount to an indirect reference to Thomas’ decision to not testify.
 

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