Opinion ID: 2653485
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Denial of Surrebuttal

Text: In the first part of its closing argument, the State focused on undisputed facts: Inman was seen in Pedigo’s store fifteen minutes before Pedigo was found dead; Inman was found in possession of rings taken from the store and the gun used to kill Pedigo. Applying the facts of the case to the elements of the charged offenses, the State argued that Inman knowingly killed Pedigo in the course of a robbery. According to the State, “there is nothing before [the jury] from an evidentiary standpoint to suggest that David Pedigo, in my [sic] way, attacked Michael Inman.” (Tr. at 882.) Arguing that the evidence “supports that Michael Inman acted in self-defense,” Inman told the jury that the State had failed to produce evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Inman had “intended to rob Dave Pedigo before Dave Pedigo pulled his gun on him.” (Tr. at 912.) Inman contended that the evidence could not support a conviction for either murder or robbery. On rebuttal, the State refuted Inman’s claim of self-defense. Pointing out that “[n]othing in that back area is disturbed,” the State argued that if there had been a struggle for the gun, not only would it have occurred where Inman was shot, but also that there would be evidence of that struggle in the immediate area. Next, the State claimed that the location of blood spatter was telling: 17 What’s the significance of the blood on the side of the safe, because that’s evidence and that actuals [sic] us a lot. What does that blood right there tell us? Ladies and gentlemen, when he was shot, David Pedigo was on his knees. That blood starts right there, right there where his head’s at and he’s on his knees, he isn’t fighting anybody for anything. If he was standing up, if there was a struggle that blood, the blood spatter that the detective talked about is going to be higher up. . . . That is probably the most telling piece of evidence in this case. (Tr. at 918–19 (emphasis added).) After the State concluded, Inman moved under Ind. Jury Rule 27 to respond to “a new fact that the State brought up” on rebuttal: that Pedigo had been on his knees when he was shot. (Tr. at 922.) The trial court denied his request. On appeal, Inman asserts that the trial court erred; according to him, the State’s argument was misleading and not supported by the evidence. He contends that the trial court was required to allow surrebuttal but can cite to no case supporting his argument. Ind. Jury Rule 27 provides, in pertinent part: If the parties argue the case to the jury, the party with the burden of going forward shall open and close the argument. The party which opens the argument must disclose in the opening all the points relied on in the case. If, in the closing, the party which closes refers to any new point or fact not disclosed in the opening, the adverse party has the right to reply to the new point or fact. The adverse party’s reply then closes the argument in the case. 4This language closely tracks the language of Ind. Code § 35-37-2-2(4) (2008): [T]he prosecuting attorney shall disclose in the opening all the points relied on in the case, and if in the closing he refers to any new point or fact not disclosed in the opening, the defendant or his 18 counsel may reply to that point or fact, and that reply shall close the argument of the case. In Goodman v. State, Goodman requested surrebuttal under Ind. Code § 35-37-2-2(4). 588 N.E.2d 507, 508 (Ind. 1992). We determined that “when the State’s rebuttal is invited by comments made by defense counsel during closing arguments, the defense has no right under the statute to respond to the rebuttal.” Id. This same reasoning applies in determining whether a trial court erred under Ind. Jury Rule 27 by denying surrebuttal. In closing argument, Inman’s counsel repeatedly argued that the evidence supported Inman’s claim of self-defense; therefore, the State was entitled to rebut his argument by calling the jury’s attention to the location of the blood spatter and inferring that Pedigo was on his knees when he was shot. The trial court did not err in denying Inman’s motion for surrebuttal.