Opinion ID: 852312
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Hells Angels

Text: Clark asserts that the prosecutor committed misconduct in the course of the following exchange that occurred while Clark was on the stand: State: You have some familiarity with the Hells Angels, don't you? Clark: Absolutely. Absolutely. We could talk about that. I'm not scared of that at all. State: Alright. You're familiar with the Hells Angels code about hurting a baby? (Tr. at 473.) Clark's lawyer objected, arguing the question was irrelevant and that the prosecutor was badgering the witness. The trial court sustained the objection on relevance grounds, and sustained the objection as it related to Clark's response (No. No. No.) (Tr. at 473-474.) After the court sustained the objection, Clark declared, Let's go. I'll answer it. (Tr. at 474.) The judge reminded Clark he had no questions before him and the State indicated it had no further questions. ( Id. ) Clark put his character at issue during his direct testimony, and a detective had earlier testified that Clark had threatened the Hells Angels would do him harm. (Tr. at 174.) It was not unfair, therefore, to ask Clark about any familiarity he might have with the gang. Furthermore, Clark's response when asked about his familiarity with the Hells Angels (We could talk about that. I'm not scared of that at all.) led rather naturally to the State's follow-up question about the gang's code on hurting children. Even after the trial court sustained an objection by defense counsel, Clark insisted that he wanted to answer the question. (Tr. at 473-474.) A defendant may not take advantage of an invited error. Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 907 (Ind. 2005). Inasmuch as Clark seemed eager to discuss the subject and the court took such action as defense counsel requested, we see no error.