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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  2. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  3. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  4. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT