Case Title: Lake v. State

Citation: 340 N.E.2d 789

Docket Number: 575S128

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 1976-01-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
340 N.E.2d 789 (1976)
Sam Earl LAKE, Appellant (Defendant below),
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
No. 575S128.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
January 28, 1976.
William P. Stanley, South Bend, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Lawrence B. O'Connell, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
*790 HUNTER, Justice.
Defendant-appellant Lake was indicted in two counts for possession and delivery of a controlled substance (heroin). Defendant was tried by jury, convicted on both counts, sentenced to a determinate period of twenty years and fined $2,000. His motion to correct errors was overruled and he appeals. At the heart of this appeal are statements made by prosecutor during closing argument, which appellant contends either separately or cumulatively, operated to deny him a fair trial.
In the closing argument, the prosecutor told the jury that they should disbelieve the state's case only if they found "that there was some kind of conspiracy of the State of Indiana against Sam Lake." The prosecutor then proceeded to tear apart the conspiracy theory. In commenting upon the unlikelihood that Police Captain Richard Thomas would involve himself in such a plot, the prosecutor stated:
and defense counsel objected:
Appellant urges that the court's response was not a sufficient admonishment to the jury to protect appellant's right to fair trial. We disagree. The clear implication of the court's statement, "You go on the evidence you heard, this is argument," is that the prosecutor's personal assessment of Captain Thomas' credibility was not evidence to be considered by the jury in arriving at a verdict. While this admonishment is not as detailed as the one recently reviewed in Eliacin v. State, (1975) Ind., 325 N.E.2d 201, we do not believe it is so deficient as to deny defendant a fair trial.
Appellant finds that the prosecutor's prolonged efforts in knocking down the "conspiracy" straw man was part of the prosecutor's design to improperly influence the jury. The recurring theme of the prosecutor's argument was that if the police and the informant were acting in concert to apprehend the defendant, then their testimony at trial should have been totally harmonious, rather than exhibiting discordant factual inconsistencies. While the prosecutor's argument is unlikely to appear in a work on model summations, nevertheless, we cannot see how the repeated hammering at this theme affected any substantial rights of the appellant. When the reasons advanced for believing or disbelieving a witness are weak or illogical  as this argument would appear to be since the defense of entrapment was not raised  it is a matter for the jury to weigh in reaching its verdict. Hubbard v. State, (1974) Ind., 313 N.E.2d 346.
Finally, appellant argues that the prosecutor, in discussing appellant's alibi defense, improperly commented upon his failure to testify. The argument reads:
Unless it appears that there are witnesses other than the defendant who have denied or contradicted the evidence against him, remarks of the type here made suggest that the only person who can offer a denial is the defendant himself. Such a suggestion unduly fetters defendant's exercise of his constitutional and statutory rights not to testify. Rowley v. State, (1972) 259 Ind. 209, 285 N.E.2d 646; Rodriguez-Sandoval v. United States, (1st Cir.1969) 409 F.2d 529; State v. Dent, (1968) 51 N.J. 428, 241 A.2d 833. In this case, as the conclusion of the passage makes clear, another witness vouched for defendant's whereabouts. It was this witness whose credibility was under attack. Under these circumstances, the prosecutor's comments did not jeopardize appellant's right not to testify.
For all the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
GIVAN, C.J., and ARTERBURN, DeBRULER and PRENTICE, JJ., concur.