Case Title: Frith v. State

Citation: 452 N.E.2d 930

Docket Number: 382S109

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 1983-08-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
452 N.E.2d 930 (1983)
Charles A. FRITH, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 382S109.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
August 30, 1983.
Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender, Ihor N. Boyko, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Richard Albert Alford, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
PIVARNIK, Justice.
Appellant-Petitioner Charles A. Frith was found guilty by a jury in the Madison County Circuit Court of First Degree Murder, to-wit: Murder in the Perpetration of a Robbery. Inc.Code § 35-13-4-1 (Burns 1975). He was sentenced to death. Although this Court affirmed Petitioner's conviction on direct appeal, this Court remanded Petitioner's case with instructions to reduce Petitioner's death sentence to a term of life imprisonment. Frith v. State, (1975) *931 263 Ind. 100, 325 N.E.2d 186. Petitioner subsequently filed pro se a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief which the Madison Circuit Court denied. Petitioner with counsel now appeals said denial and raises the following as his sole issue: 1. whether the prosecutor committed fundamental error by making certain remarks during his final argument which allegedly commented on Petitioner's failure to testify during trial.
We first note that Petitioner waived a general review of this issue by not properly preserving and raising it. Specifically, Petitioner neither objected to the contested comments at trial nor raised this issue in his original motion to correct errors. It is well-settled that the failure to object at trial constitutes waiver of review unless an error is so fundamental that it denied the accused of a fair trial. Pitman v. State, (1982) Ind., 436 N.E.2d 74. This Court has held:
Warriner v. State, (1982) Ind., 435 N.E.2d 562, 563; see also Griffin v. State, (1982) Ind., 439 N.E.2d 160. Accordingly, we now consider only whether or not the prosecutor's comments amounted to fundamental error.
During final arguments, one of the prosecuting attorneys made the following comments:
Petitioner now alleges that these comments were subject to being interpreted by the jury as comments upon his election not to testify at trial and therefore "must be strictly regarded as an impingement on his substantial rights." We do not agree. We find that the above quoted comments were not directed at Petitioner's election not to testify but rather were properly directed at the evidence and the defenses offered on Petitioner's behalf. These comments certainly do not constitute fundamental error as defined in Warriner, supra. The trial court is in all things affirmed.
GIVAN, C.J., and HUNTER and PRENTICE, JJ., concur.
DeBRULER, J., concurs in result.