Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-2862 | June 26, 2019 Page 1 of 7

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Matthew D. Anglemeyer

Marion County Public Defender

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Sierra A. Murray

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Roberto Cruz Rivera,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

June 26, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-2862

Appeal from the 

Marion Superior Court

The Honorable

Helen Marchal, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49G15-1708-F6-30973

Vaidik, Chief Judge.

Case Summary

[1] Under Indiana Code section 35-37-2-4(a), a trial court is required to give the 

jury an admonishment limiting juror discussions of the case (1) “in the 

preliminary instruction,” (2) “before separating for meals,” and (3) “at the end 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-2862 | June 26, 2019 Page 2 of 7

of the day.” In this case, the trial court read the preliminary instructions—

including the required admonishment—and then immediately excused the jury 

for lunch without repeating the admonishment. We must decide whether the 

giving of the admonishment as part of the preliminary instructions was 

sufficient to satisfy not only the “in the preliminary instruction” requirement of 

the statute but also the “before separating for meals” requirement. Because the 

jury was sent to lunch immediately after hearing the preliminary instructions, 

we hold that it was.

Facts and Procedural History 

[2] In August 2017, the State charged Rivera with Level 6 felony auto theft and Class 

A misdemeanor theft. A jury trial was held on June 13, 2018. The judge swore in 

the jurors at 12:09 p.m. and then read sixteen preliminary instructions. 

Preliminary Instruction 1, which tracks Indiana Pattern Jury Instructions—

Criminal 1.0100 (4th ed. 2019) (entitled “Duty of Jurors”), provided, in relevant 

part: 

You are permitted to discuss the evidence among yourselves in 

the jury room during recesses from trial but only when all jurors 

and alternates are present. You must not talk or communicate 

about this case with anyone else. You should keep an open 

mind. You should not form or express any conclusion or 

judgment about the outcome of the case until the Court submits 

the case to you for your deliberations.

Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 82. The judge also gave Preliminary Instruction 3,

which directed the jury “to consider all the instructions together,” id. at 85, and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-2862 | June 26, 2019 Page 3 of 7

Preliminary Instruction 12, which instructed the jury on the credibility of 

witnesses and the manner of weighing testimony, id. at 94.

[3] At 12:23 p.m., immediately after reading the preliminary instructions, the judge 

excused the jury for lunch. Tr. p. 23. The judge did not repeat the admonishment 

limiting juror discussions of the case, and Rivera did not ask for it to be repeated. 

After the jury returned from lunch, counsel gave opening statements and presented 

evidence. Counsel then reviewed and approved final instructions, which were read 

to the jury. The judge did not instruct the jury on the credibility of witnesses and 

the manner of weighing testimony; however, Final Instruction 1 specifically 

directed the jury “to consider all of the jury instructions (both preliminary and 

final) together.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 101. The jury found Rivera guilty of 

auto theft but not guilty of theft. 

[4] Rivera now appeals. 

Discussion and Decision 

[5] Rivera contends that the trial court should have (1) repeated its admonishment

limiting juror discussions of the case before excusing the jury for lunch and (2) 

included final instructions about the credibility of witnesses and the manner of 

weighing testimony. Rivera concedes that he waived both issues by failing to raise 

them in the trial court and that he must therefore establish fundamental error on 

appeal. The doctrine of fundamental error is an extremely narrow exception to the 

waiver rule that requires the defendant to show that the alleged error was so 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-2862 | June 26, 2019 Page 4 of 7

prejudicial to his rights as to make a fair trial impossible. Ryan v. State, 9 N.E.3d

663, 668 (Ind. 2014), reh’g denied. 

I. Admonishment

[6] Rivera first contends that the trial court committed fundamental error by not 

repeating its admonishment limiting juror discussions of the case before excusing

the jury for lunch. Indiana Code section 35-37-2-4(a) provides:

The court shall admonish the jurors in the preliminary 

instruction, before separating for meals, and at the end of the 

day, that it is their duty not to converse among themselves or 

permit others to converse with them on any subject connected 

with the trial, or to form or express any opinion about the case 

until the cause is finally submitted to them. 

Rivera “acknowledges the substance of the admonishment was covered in 

Preliminary Instruction 1,” which had been given less than fifteen minutes 

earlier, but asserts that the judge was required to give it a second time before 

excusing the jury for lunch.1 Appellant’s Br. p. 11. The State responds that 

because the jury was excused for lunch immediately after the preliminary 

 

1 The admonishment envisioned by Section 35-37-2-4(a) was not technically “covered” by Preliminary 

Instruction 1. As noted above, Preliminary Instruction 1 was based on Indiana Criminal Pattern Jury 

Instruction 1.0100, which in turn is largely based on Indiana Jury Rule 20(a)(8). Jury Rule 20(a)(8) requires 

judges to give jurors a preliminary instruction that they are “permitted to discuss the evidence among 

themselves in the jury room during recesses from trial when all are present, as long as they reserve judgment 

about the outcome of the case until deliberations commence.” (Emphasis added). Section 35-37-2-4(a), on 

the other hand, requires judges to admonish jurors “not to converse among themselves . . . on any subject 

connected with the trial . . . until the cause is finally submitted to them.” (Emphasis added). As such, it 

would have been impossible for the judge to give an admonishment that completely satisfied both Jury Rule 

20(a)(8) and Section 35-37-2-4(a). In any event, Rivera makes no issue of the conflict between the rule and 

the statute, and the tension between the two provisions does not affect our analysis in this case.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-2862 | June 26, 2019 Page 5 of 7

instructions were given, the “in the preliminary instruction” and “before 

separating for meals” requirements of Section 35-37-2-4(a) were both satisfied

by the single admonishment. In other words, the State contends that the judge 

effectively killed two birds with one stone. 

[7] We agree with the State. Section 35-37-2-4(a) requires judges to admonish juries at 

three different times: (1) during preliminary instructions; (2) before separating for 

meals; and (3) at the end of the day. Here, two of those times happened to 

coincide. After the jury was sworn in at 12:09 p.m., the judge read the preliminary 

instructions, one of which admonished the jury not to discuss the case unless all

the jurors were together in the jury room, not to discuss the case with anyone else, 

and not to form or express any conclusions until the case was submitted to it. The 

judge excused the jury for lunch at 12:23 p.m. Although the judge was free to 

repeat the admonishment at that time, there was no need to do so given that she 

had just read the preliminary instructions to the jury. Where, as here, there are no 

intervening proceedings between the reading of the preliminary instructions and 

the jury being excused for lunch, trial courts are not required to give the 

admonishment required by Section 35-27-2-4(a) a second time. Accordingly, the 

judge did not err. 

II. Incomplete Final Jury Instructions 

[8] Next, Rivera contends that the trial court should have given final instructions on 

the credibility of witnesses and the manner of weighing testimony. He is correct. 

Indiana Jury Rule 26(a) provides, in relevant part, that “the court shall read 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-2862 | June 26, 2019 Page 6 of 7

appropriate final instructions, which shall include at least the following: (1) the 

applicable burdens of proof; (2) the credibility of witnesses; and, (3) the manner of 

weighing the testimony received.” While the judge instructed the jury on the 

burden of proof during final instructions, see Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 104, she

did not instruct it on the credibility of witnesses and the manner of weighing 

testimony. 

[9] That said, because Rivera did not raise this issue below, he bears the heavy burden 

on appeal of establishing fundamental error. He has failed to do so. When 

considering whether an instructional error amounts to fundamental error, we 

consider the instructions as a whole and in reference to each other. Pattison v. State, 

54 N.E.3d 361, 365 (Ind. 2016). During preliminary instructions, the judge 

instructed the jury on the credibility of witnesses and the manner of weighing 

testimony. See Appellant’s App. Vol. II. p. 94 (Preliminary Instruction 12). In 

addition, Preliminary Instruction 3 directed the jury “to consider all the 

instructions together,” and Final Instruction 1 directed the jury “to consider all of

the jury instructions (both preliminary and final) together.” Id. at 85, 101. The 

trial lasted one day, so in the same day that the jury decided the case, it heard 

instructions regarding the credibility of witnesses and the manner of weighing 

testimony. The trial court did not commit fundamental error.

2

 

2 Rivera also argues that “[e]ven if this Court finds neither error standing alone warrants reversal in this case, 

the cumulative effect of the combined errors does.” Appellant’s Br. p. 13. However, because we find that the 

trial court did not err by not admonishing the jury a second time before lunch, there were not “combined 

errors,” so Rivera’s argument necessarily fails. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-2862 | June 26, 2019 Page 7 of 7

[10]Affirmed. 

Kirsch, J., and Altice, J., concur.