ILNews

Prosecutor's conduct leads to child-molesting conviction reversal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals said a Tippecanoe County man has the right to a retrial on a child molestation charge because the prosecutor inappropriately vouched for the victim’s credibility and had offered to show the victim a transcript of past statements without the teenager asking for that recollection.

In a unanimous ruling Tuesday in Michael J. Gaby v. State of Indiana, No. 79A02-1006-CR-804, the three-judge appellate panel reversed the Class A felony child molesting conviction and remanded for retrial before Tippecanoe Superior Judge Thomas Bush.

The case involves a girl known as M.C., born in 1993, who lived in the same apartment complex as Michael Gaby in the mid-90s. He watched her along with other children when M.C.’s mother went to work. One time, he was alone with the girl and told her to try on some clothes that his young daughter of the same age had outgrown. She undressed, and the court record says that Gaby put a blanket over her and used his fingers to molest her while she was sitting on the bed. The girl didn’t go to Gaby’s apartment alone after this incident, and Gaby and his daughter later moved out of the apartment. She never reported the incident until April 2009, when she was 15 years old and told a teacher what Gaby had done to her. That teacher contacted police and the investigation began, with Gaby denying he’d molested the girl.

Police charged him with felony child molesting in June 2009 and amended the charges in March 2010 based on dates of the incident. After a two-day trial, a jury found Gaby guilty. The trial court sentenced him to 20 years in prison and ordered that he serve that as a credit-restricted felon, based on a 2008 state statute, meaning that a convict only earns one day of credit for every six served.

But what led to this appellate reversal is the prosecutor’s conduct at trial. Gaby argued that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the prosecutor to refresh M.C.’s recollection using a transcript from a previous interview. The girl testified at trial that Gaby hadn’t spoken or touched her anywhere else, but the prosecutor then showed her a past statement contradicting that. Gaby’s counsel objected and the trial court allowed it, saying attorneys are able to impeach their own witnesses on the stand. But the appellate panel disagreed, citing Indiana Rules of Evidence and past precedent stating that a witness must first state that he or she does not recall information sought by the questioner in order for the attorney to refresh that individual.

“We agree with Gaby that the transcript clearly shows that M.C. did not testify as to any lack of recollection regarding the events before the prosecutor showed her the transcript of previous statement,” Judge Paul Mathias wrote. “M.C. simply gave answers the prosecutor neither expected nor desired. The prosecutor attempted to rectify this by having M.C. read the transcript of her previous statement, after which M.C. still struggled to give the prosecutor the desired answers.”

The appeals court also found the prosecutor erred by saying she was “confident” that the jury would find M.C. credible, and that resulted in improper vouching on an issue central in this case.

Sending the case back for retrial, the appellate panel found the recollection and vouching issues to be non-harmless errors. A retrial is possible and double jeopardy doesn’t apply, said the appellate judges. They also determined that if Gaby is found guilty, he can’t be sentenced as a credit-restricted felon because the court in Upton v. State, 904 N.E. 2d 700, 704 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), found that restriction unconstitutional when applied retroactively.







 

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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT