Title: White v. State

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

257 Ind. 64 (1971)
272 N.E.2d 312
WALTER SMITH WHITE
v.
STATE OF INDIANA.
No. 569S126.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
Filed August 25, 1971.
*66 James R. White, of New Castle, Frederick F. McClellan, of Muncie, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Attorney General, J. Frank Hanley, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.
PRENTICE, J.
Defendant (Appellant) was convicted of a theft committed in Henry County, Indiana, and sentenced to the Indiana State Prison for not less than one (1) nor more than ten (10) years.
The sole error presented on appeal is the denial of Defendant's Motion for a mistrial, after a State's witness, Police Officer Robert E. Estes, Jr., improperly testified with reference to the defendant's having been brought into the Anderson, Indiana Police Station in reference to an armed robbery in the city of Anderson, Madison County, Indiana. Officer Estes' testimony came during the State's case in chief, and his entire testimony is as follows:
After hearing arguments of counsel, during which the prosecutor acknowledged the error but assured that it was only a slip on the part of the officer who had been called only for the purpose of identifying the defendant, the court overruled the motion on authority of Duke v. State (1968), 249 Ind. 466, 233 N.E.2d 159, struck the objectionable testimony and admonished the jury to disregard it. Defendant had contended that the prosecutor knew the testimony to be inadmissible, that it was in the minds of the jurors and could not be erased and was prejudicial to him, but apparently was unable to present persuasive authority in support of his motion.
The question considered is one that must, of necessity, be determined by the facts of each case as it arises, and this doubtlessly is the reason for the general rule, followed in this state and elsewhere, that the granting of a mistrial rests largely in the sound discretion of the trial judge. Duke v. State (supra).
A factual situation similar to the one at bar does not appear to have been previously reviewed by this Court, although the right to have a mistrial declared by reason of the jury's having been erroneously subjected to incompetent and inadmissible evidence has been long recognized. Rohlfing v. State (1951), 230 Ind. 236, 102 N.E.2d 199. In the Rohlfing case (supra) the prosecution several times during the course of the trial displayed to the jury certain items of evidence that had been previously excluded by an order to suppress. In each instance, the court instructed the prosecutor to remove the articles and admonished the jury but denied Appellant's motion for a mistrial. In reversing, we said:
Quoting from the earlier case of Derry v. State (1932), 204 Ind. 21. 182 N.E. 701, we continued:
Being charitable towards the prosecutor, in view of the misconduct, we made the following elementary declaration concerning the inadmissible evidence:
In the civil case of Taggart v. Keebler (1926), 198 Ind. 633, 154 N.E. 485, the plaintiff was able several times to get before the jury a statement of the defendant made shortly after the accident, "I am heavily insured." Subsequently the court *69 instructed the jury to disregard such statement. In the earlier case of Martin v. Lilly (1919), 188 Ind. 139, 121 N.E. 443, counsel for the defendant was permitted on voir dire to make an offer to prove, in the presence of the jury, that the defendant was insured. In both cases we reversed, notwithstanding the giving of proper instructions that the matter of insurance not be considered; and in both cases we said: "It is true that erroneous and extraneous matters sometimes get into a law suit through the zeal of counsel, and, if checked at once by the trial court and the jury is instructed, this may be cured; but one party may not be permitted to get the other into a dying condition and then expect the court to revive him by instructions." 188 Ind. at 146. (Our emphasis)
Turning to other jurisdictions wherein the courts have considered the adequacy of striking improper testimony and admonishing the jury, as opposed to declaring a mistrial, we find that the following matters have been considered:
*70 The United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, in 1966 reversed in the case of Gregory v. United States of America, 369 Fed.2d 185.
In the Wright case (supra) it was held to be error for the State Narcotics Agent to testify as to the admission by the defendant that he had served four previous terms in the penitentiary, and that such error was prejudicial to the defendant and required reversal, though objection to such improper testimony was sustained and the jury was admonished not to consider it. The defendant did not take the stand and his character or reputation was not an element of the offense for which he was being tried, hence the evidence of previous convictions was not admissible. With respect to such testimony by the Narcotics Agent, the court said:
In another Oklahoma case the court severely criticized the police officer witness for making a voluntary statement prejudicial to the rights of the defendant.
The same results in similar cases have been reached in the State of Michigan. People v. Camel (1968), 11 Mich. App. 219, 160 N.W.2d 790; People v. Greenway (1962), 365 Mich. 547, 114 N.W.2d 188.
In the Camel case (supra) the defendant was convicted by jury. He appealed, claiming that the court below erred in denying his motion for mistrial. His motion was prompted by the following interrogation of a police officer called by the state:
In reversing the trial court the court quoted from Greenway, supra:
In the Greenway case (supra) the prosecution called a witness and asked him where he had met the defendant. When he answered, "In the Arkansas Prison," defense counsel moved for a mistrial which was denied. The Supreme Court reversed basing its conclusion on the fact that the prosecutor had been forewarned on the fact that the witness had made a statement to the police and that the record disclosed the prosecutor was familiar with that statement.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Judicial Circuit has also held that improper testimony of a Government Narcotics Agent warranted the granting of a mistrial, notwithstanding that the testimony had been stricken and justified its holding, in part at least, upon the prosecution's calculated impropriety. In Helton v. United States of America (1955), 221 F.2d 338, the court said:
In the case of Fiswick v. United States of America (1946), 329 U.S. 211, 91 L. Ed. 196, 67 S. Ct. 224, the Supreme Court of the United States stated what we believe to be the standard in determining whether error was harmless or substantially prejudicial. The case involved the admission into evidence of certain admissions of co-defendants. The Solicitor General conceded that the ruling of the trial court was erroneous but argued that the error was harmless under the "harmless error" statute (Judicial Code § 269, 28 U.S.C.A. *75 § 391, 8 FCA Title 28, § 391). Quoting from the earlier case of Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 90 L. Ed. 1557, 66 S. Ct. 1239, where the question had been settled, the court re-affirmed the following proposition:
In the case at bar, three witnesses testified that they were present at the holdup and identified the defendant as the robber. The defendant claimed a mistake in identity and presented himself, his wife and her mother and father, all of whom testified that they were together at a point some distance from the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. In addition, the defendant presented six character witnesses in his behalf, both as to honesty and integrity and for peace and quietude. All testified that the defendant's reputation for such qualities was good. Except as might have been inferred from the improper testimony of Officer Estes, the *76 prosecution did not challenge the defendant's reputation for these qualities nor for truth and veracity. No evidence was offered in rebuttal.
The foregoing is all of the evidence of probative value that was presented at the trial. The jury was thus confronted with determining whether to place the greater reliance upon the correctness of the identification by the State's witnesses or upon the integrity of the defendant and his alibi witnesses; for it is inescapable that if the prosecuting witnesses were accurate in their identification, not only the defendant, but his wife and her parents as well, committed unmitigated acts of perjury. We do not question the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict; but we cannot say with certainty that with such a difficult decision to make in the face of such conflicting testimony the jury was not influenced by the improper testimony of Officer Estes deliberately induced by the prosecutor, notwithstanding the admonition by the trial judge to disregard it.
It is to be noted that the only evidence offered by Officer Estes was the improper evidence of another charge pending against defendant. He knew nothing concerning the defendant's involvement, if any, with the crime for which he was standing trial. To justify the presence of Officer Estes, the prosecutor said that he was brought for "purposes of identification only." Identification of what? The man who was suspect in another criminal involvement and is, therefore, to be regarded with suspicion? We think it apparent that the sole purpose of calling the witness was to wield the evidential harpoon, deliberately calculated by counsel to prejudice the jury against the defendant and his defense. While this Court is generally reluctant to override the decision of a trial judge in his determination that error was harmless, in view of an admonition, we feel that where there are serious conflicts in the evidence entitling the jury to go either way upon the issue of guilt or innocence, it is especially *77 important that they not be subjected to improper influences. In such a case, the defendant should be given the benefit of reasonable doubts; and in a case such as this, where the error was deliberately committed and amounted to misconduct on the part of counsel, intervention becomes more compelling. Although not entitled to a perfect trial, the defendant is entitled to a fair trial; and where counsel has deliberately violated the rights of Defendant and there is reasonable grounds to believe that such violation may have prejudiced his cause, a mistrial should be declared, if moved by the injured party.
This case is readily distinguished from those cited by the State. In Chesterfield v. State (1923), 194 Ind. 282, 141 N.E. 632, the objectional question was never answered. In Duke v. State (1968), 249 Ind. 466, 233 N.E.2d 159, there was no indication that the erroneous testimony, although given by a police officer, was deliberately intended to be prejudicial and further there was some reason to believe that defense counsel had induced it by high pressured and vindictive cross-examination. Duncan v. State (1908), 171 Ind. 444, 86 N.E. 641, simply applied the general rule that striking an objectionable question and answer and admonishing the jury to disregard it cures the error. That case did not admit of any of the exceptions; and as previously stated, there are circumstances where the harmful effects of error simply cannot be so easily removed. In Ward v. State (1965), 246 Ind. 374, 205 N.E.2d 148, the Court stated the rule differently and said that it will apply, unless it is made to appear that the error was not cured. It did not infer that the error was always cured by a withdrawal and admonition.
The State apparently labors under the erroneous belief that in such cases as these, the burden is upon the party claiming error to conclusively demonstrate that the error caused the verdict to be what it was and that it would have been otherwise had the error not occurred. True, the burden is upon him to show that he was harmed; but this is *78 done when it is made, by all the circumstances, to appear that the error placed him in a position of grave peril to which he should not have been subjected.
The judgment is reversed and a new trial ordered.
Arterburn, C.J., Givan, DeBruler and Hunter, JJ., concur.
NOTE.  Reported in 272 N.E.2d 312.