Opinion ID: 853646
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Exactly what I mean. And this autopsy doesn't prove guilt to me.

Text: MR. CUMMINGS: Judge that is unbelievable. I thought this guy was a lawyer. I cannot believe he said that. Although not specifically stating the basis of his objection, it appears that Cummings was objecting on the ground that the witness was testifying to an opinion concerning guilt or innocence, which is prohibited by Evidence Rule 704(b). Cummings was apparently contending that because the witness was a lawyer, he should have known that his comment was improper. Nonetheless, a simple objection to the testimony on the ground that it violated Evidence Rule 704(b) would have sufficed. Finally, Marcum points to the following exchange during Cummings' cross-examination of him: Q. You are not responsible for the theft of that van, is that what you are telling these ladies and gentlemen? A. I am responsible but I.... Q. Should you be found guilty of that crime? A. Yes. Q. Then why are we having a trial on that issue? Why didn't you just plead guilty. MR. OLIVER: Judge this is not appropriate, Judge. Is it appropriate? .... JUDGE: Please gentlemen, please. There are many reason[s] for that decision. It seems awkward to me that you are making that inquiry. We are here so we will make the best of it. Go on please. We agree that this question is improper. Marcum admitted that he was guilty of one of the six charges against him. He was under no obligation to plead guilty and was entitled to a trial at which the State was required to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that he admitted on the stand that he was guilty of one charge does not suggest his guilt of the remaining charges. Although many of Cummings' comments were improper, and some appear to be direct violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Marcum is not entitled to relief on his claim of prosecutorial misconduct because he has not established that the improper comments had a probable persuasive effect on the jury's decision. [3] See Cox, 696 N.E.2d at 859. Breaches of civility and attacks on the integrity or competence of counsel, particularly in a context where opposing counsel is giving as well as taking, are ordinarily matters for another forum. At least in the examples cited here, we cannot conclude that these comments would have affected the jury's verdict in light of the evidence as a whole. As with other breaches of professional obligations, reversal of a criminal conviction is not the only forum in which to raise these issues. Cf. Goodner v. State, 714 N.E.2d 638, 642-43 (Ind.1999).