Opinion ID: 852312
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Claims of Fundamental Error

Text: Because the best way to assure a fair trial is to resolve potential errors while the trial is under way, we generally hold that a claim of error must be raised during trial in order to be available as an issue on appeal. We nevertheless sometimes entertain such claims under the rubric of fundamental error. Fundamental error is an error that makes a fair trial impossible or constitutes clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process presenting an undeniable and substantial potential for harm. Benson v. State, 762 N.E.2d 748, 755 (Ind.2002). Fundamental error applies only when the actual or potential harm cannot be denied. Id. at 756. An appellate court receiving contentions of fundamental error need only expound upon those it thinks warrant relief. It is otherwise adequate to note that the claim has not been preserved. Carter v. State, 754 N.E.2d 877, 881 (Ind.2001). There are five such claims here. A. Court Comment. Clark continually disrupted the trial with comments and interjections even when objections were sustained in his favor. ( See Tr. at 274, 452, 456-59, 469-70, 473-74.) During the cross-examination of Clark by the prosecutor, Clark stated, I'm not gonna talk to this [p]rosecutor any more. If you want to hold me in contempt of [c]ourt, you can do what you've got to do. (Tr. at 476-77.) The court responded by saying, Well, I can do what I've got to do, but I think you're doing more than I could do. (Tr. at 477.) B. Recklessness. In final instruction number 4, the court informed the jury that if the State failed to prove the Defendant committed murder, the jury may consider whether Clark committed reckless homicide, a class C felony, and accurately defined for the jurors the crime of reckless homicide. See Ind.Code § 35-42-1-5(2008). Clark contends the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by arguing to the jury that the lesser included offense of reckless homicide was more intended for deaths resulting from reckless driving. C. State's Argument on Crime. Clark also claims the prosecutor asked the jury to convict him for reasons other than his guilt. He cites this part of final argument: This case is important because the issue in this case is, do the facts and evidence support the inference that the Defendant knowingly and intentionally committed murder. And as this case goes through the Court process, it will be known as Ian Clark versus the State of Indiana. And as attorneys in the future read the case law and they read the case of the State of Indiana, or Ian Clark versus the State of Indiana, this case will stand for the proposition that this community and this State, will not tolerate what happened here. It will also stand for the proposition that this, these facts that are sufficient to support the inference that the Defendant knowingly or intentionally murdered Samantha. I'm asking you to find the Defendant guilty of murder. Thank you. (Tr. at 534-35.) The trial court instructed the jurors that the presumption of innocence continues until the State has proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, that the jurors' decision must be based on the evidence, that neither sympathy nor bias should be allowed to influence the jurors' decision, and that their decision should rest solely upon the law and the evidence, and without thought to the possible consequences. (App. at 278-280.) D. Arguing an Uncharged Aggravating Circumstance? The State and Clark stipulated to the single charged aggravator that the victim was less than twelve years of age. See Ind.Code § 35-50-2-9(b)(12) (2008). The prosecutor argued in part to the jury: When you consider whether or not the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances, I want you to think about this. The Defendant had the responsibility to care for a two year old. I want you to consider the brutality of what he did. The torture that little Samantha endured. He took the life of a two year old child. I think it's ironic that at 11:30 on May 25th, 2007, Samantha lost her life. At 11:30 on today's date, you found him guilty of murder. Samantha had her whole life ahead of her, and the Defendant snuffed it out. As I told you, in my prior final argument, you can't render an injustice in this case. It's been awful. But what you can do is see that the Defendant doesn't commit it again. Keep the life that was all ahead for Samantha, he took it away from her. It's only fair that he spends the rest of his life in jail. Thank you. (Tr. at 555.) The State's argument was primarily themed around the already stipulated aggravator of Samantha's young age, using the word torture (which had not been charged as an aggravator) only once in the entire argument. E. Voir Dire. Clark had raised an insanity defense, so the prosecutor asked potential jurors questions about insanity. There were three instances in which the prosecutor asked something like, Do you believe there are people in this society that are just evil, (Voir Dire Tr. at 40), and, [d]o you think it's possible for somebody to be just evil and you understand there's a difference between being legally insane and evil? (Voir Dire Tr. at 54.) The foregoing events during trial did not constitute a blatant violation of basic and elementary due process making a fair trial impossible, the standard for fundamental error. Benson, 762 N.E.2d at 756.