Opinion ID: 1981028
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Judicial Intervention in Closing Argument

Text: Isaacs claims the trial judge invaded the province of the jury in violation of Art. I, sec. 19 [3] of the Indiana Constitution while ruling on an objection during final argument. During trial, Isaacs called a forensic pathologist, Dr. Shaku Teas, to testify concerning her review of the autopsy on Maureen conducted by Dr. Richard Harruff, the State's forensic pathologist. Dr. Teas said, I think the cause of her death was spinal injuries. R. at 2486. As to how those injuries arose, Dr. Teas stated, the mechanism of the injury to the neck is most likely, in my opinion, a fall. A fall down the stairs. R. at 2438. She also indicated that the injuries could have resulted from being slammed into a wall. Id. During closing argument, Isaacs' counsel remarked that Doctor Teaus [sic] testified that she died from the neck injury, from the fall. R. 3245. The following exchange ensued: MR. DEMKOVICH: Judge, I'm gonna object to that. The doctor [Dr. Teas], the question [that] was asked by Miss Crispin [co-prosecutor] was, Doctor, can you say death wouldn't have resulted by uh, for cause other than the spinal cord injury? She said, I couldn't rule that out. I think that's an improper statement as to what Doctor Teaus [sic] said. MR. URDAL: I don't think it's improper Judge. She [Dr. Teas] said that Maureen died from a fall (inaudible). JUDGE: She said that she died from the fall, but she also said that she could have died from something, something else could have been a cause. I mean she said both ways. Her opinion was that she died as the result of a fall, from a spinal cord injury, but she could not rule out other possible causes. R. at 2805. Isaacs' counsel then continued his closing statement. During a break, and outside the presence of the jury, the judge consulted with counsel about any possible misconception regarding the prosecutor's objection and the judge's response to it. After this conference, the jury returned to the courtroom and the judge said: JUDGE: Ladies and gentlemen, during a portion of Mr. Urdal's closing argument he uh, there was an objection by Mr. Demkovich. As Mr. Urdal indicated to you earlier, we added some instructions at the last minute about some additional crimes, and I think uh, and I'm not sure what I said, although, and I may have misspoken myself concerning the testimony of Doctor Teaus [sic]. Doctor Teaus [sic], whatever I said earlier, or whatever Mr. Urdal may have said, or Mr. Demkovich said, to correct what I may have said earlier, was Doctor Teaus [sic] said that her cause of death was a spinal cord injury. That was her number one cause of death. When asked if she, if there were other possible causes of death, she said she could not rule those out, other causes of death out. She also said that the spinal cord injury could have been a result, and it may have been, and there's some dispute, and I'm not sure what she said at this point, that it may have been, and I think one point she said most likely is [sic] was the result of the fall, but then she said that it may have been as the result of being pushed up against the wall, or being hit on the head with the object that's in front of you, or some other possible reason. So she basically said that while she thought it might have been a result of the fall, there was other reasons for the possible spinal cord injury. So with that correction uh, Mr. Urdal you may continue. R. at 3264-65. The judge also allowed defense counsel to indicate to the jurors that they could request to hear a play-back of both doctors' testimony. The court gave a final instruction saying: Nothing that I said during the trial was intended as any suggestion of what facts or what verdict you should find. Each of you, as jurors, must determine the facts and the verdict. R. at 232. Isaacs did not object to the judge's response to the prosecutor's objection or to the judge's later clarifying statement to the jury, either before the jury, during the private consultation with counsel, or otherwise. Accordingly, there is no error preserved for appeal.