Court Opinion

ID: 9897420
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:11:20.239864+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:24.281962
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                              Apr 24 2023, 9:10 am

                                                                                   CLERK
                                                                              Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                                 Court of Appeals
                                                                                   and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                     ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Eugene A. Kress                                            Theodore E. Rokita
Anderson, Indiana                                          Attorney General of Indiana
                                                           J.T. Whitehead
                                                           Nicole D. Wiggins
                                                           Deputy Attorneys General
                                                           Indianapolis, Indiana

                                            IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Katrina Louise Fouts,                                      April 24, 2023
Appellant-Defendant,                                       Court of Appeals Case No.
                                                           22A-CR-917
        v.                                                 Appeal from the Hamilton
                                                           Superior Court
State of Indiana,                                          The Honorable William J. Hughes,
Appellee-Plaintiff.                                        Judge
                                                           Trial Court Cause No.
                                                           29D03-2009-MR-5701

                                   Opinion by Judge Robb
                               Judges Riley and Tavitas concur.

Robb, Judge.

Case Summary and Issues

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-917| April 24, 2023                           Page 1 of 17
[1]   Following a jury trial, Katrina Fouts was convicted of conspiracy to commit

      murder, a Level 1 felony, and failure to report human remains, a Class A

      misdemeanor. Fouts now appeals, raising multiple issues for our review which

      we restate as: (1) whether there was sufficient evidence to support her

      convictions; (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting certain

      evidence; and (3) whether the State committed prosecutorial misconduct

      amounting to fundamental error. Concluding the State presented sufficient

      evidence to support Fouts’ convictions, the trial court did not abuse its

      discretion in admitting evidence, and the State did not commit fundamental

      error, we affirm.

      Facts and Procedural History                                   1

[2]   Fouts and David Fouts were married in 2019. On April 24, 2020, David’s body

      was found in a ditch alongside Overdorf Road in Hamilton County. David had

      last been seen on April 21.

[3]   Detectives Larry Bendzen and Christopher Yates of the Hamilton County

      Sheriff’s Department responded to the scene and observed David with his left

      arm through the sleeve of a pink shirt and a leather rifle sling across his face.

      Further, there were cutting marks near the neck area of the pink shirt and

      1
       We held a traveling oral argument in this case on March 28, 2023, at Morton High School. We commend
      counsel on the quality of their oral and written advocacy, and we thank Morton and the Lake County Bar
      Association for hosting the event, as well as the attendees for the insightful questions posed to the panel and
      counsel after the argument.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-917| April 24, 2023                                    Page 2 of 17
      evidence that David’s ankles and wrists had been taped. Given the state of

      David’s body, including that his feet were bare but clean, officers concluded

      David did not die in that location. Deputy Coroner Mark Epperson concurred.

      See Transcript, Volume 3 at 202.

[4]   An autopsy was conducted and revealed that David’s stomach contents

      included mushrooms. His stomach contents were then sent to mycologist Dr.

      Mary Aime for further testing. Dr. Aime was able to identify lyophyllum

      connatum mushrooms through testing which are known to produce toxins such

      as muscarine. 2 However, David’s urine, liver, and kidney tested negative for

      such toxins. Dr. David Sozio, a forensic pathologist, testified that he could not

      “rule out between poisoning and asphyxia” but concluded David died of

      “[h]omicide by unspecified means[.]” Tr., Vol. 4 at 114-15.

[5]   After the autopsy, Detective Greg Lockhart went to Fouts’ home and informed

      her of David’s death. Police then obtained and executed search warrants for

      numerous cell phones, vehicles, and computers. Cell phone analysis established

      that Fouts’ top contact was Terry Hopkins whom she contacted 734 times

      between March 27 and April 27. Hopkins was a retired police officer and was

      the caretaker of Fouts’ father Glen Gentry. Fouts described Hopkins as a “good

      friend” and “second father” to her. Id. at 155. However, Fouts told police that

      2
       Lyophyllum connatum is a pure white mushroom usually growing in dense clusters beside woodland paths.
      Muscarine is a naturally occurring toxin in some mushrooms and can be dangerous if ingested.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-917| April 24, 2023                          Page 3 of 17
      Hopkins and David “absolutely did not get along [and] did not like each other.”

      Id.

[6]   During the search, police located multiple vehicles in Fouts’ garage including a

      Nissan Rogue and Volkswagen Tiguan. Hopkins used the Rogue to transport

      Gentry because Gentry could not drive himself. The Tiguan was used by Fouts.

      Police also discovered a hydraulic lift with a piece of cardboard on top of it in

      the garage. A mat for the hydraulic lift was then found in the trunk of the

      Rogue. Fouts told police that Hopkins had purchased the hydraulic lift to help

      her move items from her garage into the house and that they had assembled it

      April 23, after David had gone missing. However, when DNA analysis was

      performed on the hydraulic lift mat, it contained samples of David’s DNA. The

      cardboard also contained blood and DNA from Hopkins and Fouts.

[7]   In addition, police found multiple items of interest in the Rogue, including a

      variety of tools, a box cutter knife, and zip ties. Also, receipts showed that when

      Hopkins purchased these supplies, he also purchased two pairs of cleaning

      gloves, sizes small and medium. In the Tiguan, police found a revolver wrapped

      in plastic. Police also found walkie-talkies in each vehicle. They were the same

      make and model and tuned to the same channel and subchannel. The box

      cutter knife found in the Rogue was later tested and had “small pink fibers” on

      one side of the blade. Id. at 234. When Hopkins was taken in by the police, he

      displayed numerous injuries including deep bruising on his chest and cuts and

      lacerations on his hands and arms.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-917| April 24, 2023          Page 4 of 17
[8]   On September 17, 2020, the State charged Fouts with murder, a felony;

      conspiracy to commit murder, a Level 1 felony; failure to report human

      remains, a Class A misdemeanor; and false informing, a Class B misdemeanor.

      The false informing charge was subsequently dismissed. When police arrested

      Fouts, she was in possession of a bag containing $40,000 in United States

      currency. Fouts was also in possession of a phone that had the following web

      search history:

                   • Know Your Rights

                   • Spy Escape

                   • How to Disappear Completely

                   • How to Move Away and Never Be Found Again

                   • Fake Driver License ID USA

      See Exhibits, Volume 8 at 81-82.

[9]   Prior to trial, Fouts moved to exclude testimony from Detective Lockhart

      regarding statements she made to him. The trial court concluded that Fouts’

      statements to Detective Lockhart were not a confession and therefore not

      precluded from admission. See Tr., Vol. 2 at 91-92. At trial, without objection

      from Fouts, Detective Lockhart testified:

              I stated to her you have to know at this point we know that you
              killed . . . David and there was a pause and she said, I know.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-917| April 24, 2023          Page 5 of 17
       Tr., Vol. 5 at 217. Subsequently, during the State’s rebuttal to Fouts’ closing

       argument, the prosecutor stated:

               Direct evidence of a crime includes the confessions and
               admissions of the accused. A confession need not be an explicit
               and direct admission of guilt . . . to be considered direct evidence.
               . . . So, even if you want to assume or believe that that is the only
               piece of direct evidence in this case, it’s a pretty strong one. The
               admission to Detective Lockhart.

       Tr., Vol. 6 at 85. Following this statement, Fouts did not object, request an

       admonishment, or move for a mistrial.

[10]   The jury found Fouts not guilty of murder but guilty of conspiracy to commit

       murder and failure to report human remains. The trial court sentenced Fouts to

       an aggregate term of thirty-four years executed in the Indiana Department of

       Correction. Fouts now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

       Discussion and Decision
       II. Sufficiency of the Evidence
       A.      Standard of Review
[11]   When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence required to support a

       conviction, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the

       witnesses. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). Instead, we consider

       only the evidence supporting the verdict and any reasonable inferences that can

       be drawn therefrom. Morris v. State, 114 N.E.3d 531, 535 (Ind. Ct. App.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-917| April 24, 2023           Page 6 of 17
       2018), trans. denied. We consider conflicting evidence most favorably to the

       verdict. Silvers v. State, 114 N.E.3d 931, 936 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). “We will

       affirm if there is substantial evidence of probative value such that a reasonable

       trier of fact could have concluded the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable

       doubt.” Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003, 1005 (Ind. 2009). The evidence need

       not overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; it is sufficient if an

       inference may reasonably be drawn from the evidence to support the

       judgment. Silvers, 114 N.E.3d at 936.

       B.         Conspiracy to Commit Murder
[12]   Fouts challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conspiracy to

       commit murder conviction. The State bears the burden of proving all elements

       of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Taylor v. State, 587 N.E.2d

       1293, 1301 (Ind. 1992); see also Ind. Code § 35-41-4-1(a). To convict Fouts of

       conspiracy to commit murder, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable

       doubt that (1) Fouts (2) knowingly or intentionally (3) agreed with Hopkins to

       commit murder and (4) performed an overt act in furtherance of the agreement.

       See Ind. Code § 35-41-5-2(a)(2), (b); Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(1); Perkins v. State,

       483 N.E.2d 1379, 1385 (Ind. 1985). Fouts argues there is insufficient evidence

       of (A) intent to commit murder or (B) an agreement between Fouts and

       Hopkins. 3

       3
           Fouts does not challenge the overt act prong.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-917| April 24, 2023           Page 7 of 17
[13]   The State is not required to establish the existence of a formal express

       agreement to prove a conspiracy. Cockrell v. State, 743 N.E.2d 799, 804 (Ind. Ct.

       App. 2001). “‘It is sufficient if the minds of the parties meet understandingly to

       bring about an intelligent and deliberate agreement to commit the

       offense.’” Weida v. State, 778 N.E.2d 843, 847 (Ind. Ct. App.

       2002) (quoting Porter v. State, 715 N.E.2d 868, 871 (Ind. 1999)). An agreement

       can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, which may include the overt acts

       of the parties in furtherance of the criminal act. Id. Likewise, to determine

       whether the defendant had the requisite intent to commit the crime alleged,

       “[t]he trier of fact must usually resort to circumstantial evidence or reasonable

       inferences drawn from examination of the circumstances surrounding the

       crime[.]” Brown v. State, 659 N.E.2d 652, 657 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (quotation

       omitted), trans. denied.

[14]   Fouts concedes the following circumstantial evidence regarding an agreement

       exists:

                 (1) Hopkins’ Harbor Freight purchases; (2) Phone records of
                 conversations between the parties; (3) GPS evidence showing
                 Hopkins and Mrs. Fouts whereabouts during the time frame that
                 investigators believe the crime was committed; (4) a video of two
                 vehicles passing the Star Financial Center; (5) DNA linking
                 David Fouts to the hydraulic lift cart; (6) Hopkins knife with
                 fibers that may or may not have come from the shirt found on
                 David Fouts’ body; (7) There is DNA evidence that primarily
                 points to Hopkins; (8) Two walkie-talkies set to the same
                 channel; (9) Photos of Hopkins’ bruised torso and other
                 scratches; (10) Mrs. Fouts’ statements to detectives as well as her
                 web searches and the fact she had cash on her when arrested.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-917| April 24, 2023            Page 8 of 17
       Appellant’s Brief at 24-25. 4 Fouts contends this evidence is not sufficient to

       establish an agreement; however, Fouts’ argument is essentially a request to

       reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. Riehle v. State, 823 N.E.2d 287, 292

       (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied.

[15]   Fouts also argues the requisite intent was not proven because “[t]he total

       evidence in the instant case is insufficient, even with reasonable inferences, to

       have proven homicide beyond a reasonable doubt as the cause of death.”

       Appellant’s Br. at 24. Here, as pointed out by Fouts, Dr. Sozio was unable to

       determine whether David died from mushroom poisoning or asphyxia.

       However, “[w]e have held in numerous cases that medical testimony is not an

       absolute requirement to establishing the cause of death in a murder

       case.” Wilson v. State, 432 N.E.2d 30, 33 (Ind. 1982). The cause of death is not

       an element of the offense; “the element in question is the killing, absent a

       suggestion of intervening cause.” Id. Dr. Sozio concluded David died of

       “[h]omicide by unspecified means[.]” Tr., Vol. 4 at 114-15. Also, the State

       presented other evidence of foul play, including but not limited to, the

       circumstantial evidence conceded by Fouts.

[16]   Therefore, we conclude the State presented sufficient evidence to support Fouts’

       conspiracy to commit murder conviction.

       4
        Fouts states this is circumstantial evidence of an agreement. However, we believe it also supports the intent
       prong. Further, we note the circumstantial evidence is not limited to the evidence highlighted by Fouts.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-917| April 24, 2023                                  Page 9 of 17
       C.      Failure to Report Human Remains
[17]   Fouts also argues there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction of

       failure to report human remains. Pursuant to Indiana Code section 35-45-19-3,

       a person who discovers or handles human remains when it appears the

       deceased person died “suddenly, while in apparent good health; . . . from

       poisoning[;] . . . [or] under any other suspicious or unusual circumstances” and

       “knowingly or intentionally” fails to report the human remains “within three

       (3) hours after finding the human remains” commits failure to report human

       remains, a Class A misdemeanor.

[18]   Fouts contends she could not comply with the three-hour window of time to

       report David’s remains because there is no evidence “of when or if she

       discovered the body.” Appellant’s Br. at 36. However, Fouts’ argument is again

       a request to reweigh the evidence. Riehle, 823 N.E.2d at 292.

[19]   First, the evidence that David was moved after death seems clear. There was

       evidence that his ankles and wrists had been taped. Further, given the state of

       David’s body, including that his feet were bare but clean, officers and Deputy

       Coroner Epperson concluded that David did not die in the location where he

       was found. See Tr., Vol. 3 at 202.

[20]   Next, there is evidence that David was moved from Fouts’ home by Hopkins.

       In Fouts’ garage, police discovered a hydraulic lift with a piece of cardboard on

       top of it. A mat for the hydraulic lift was then found in the trunk of the vehicle

       Hopkins drove. When DNA analysis was performed on the hydraulic lift mat, it

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-917| April 24, 2023         Page 10 of 17
       contained samples of David’s DNA. The cardboard also contained blood and

       DNA from Hopkins and Fouts. The box cutter knife found in Hopkins’ vehicle

       was later tested and “small pink fibers” were found on one side of the blade.

       Tr., Vol. 4 at 234. Further, when police found Hopkins, he displayed numerous

       cuts and other injuries including deep bruising on his chest and cuts and

       lacerations on his hands and arms.

[21]   Last, there is evidence to suggest Fouts helped transport the body or had

       knowledge the murder occurred. Cellphone records show a large amount of

       communication between Fouts and Hopkins and Fouts stopped texting David

       around the time of his death. Hopkins and Fouts both had walkie-talkies in

       their cars. Fouts told police that she and Hopkins had purchased the hydraulic

       lift and built it together after David was last seen. And when purchasing the

       supplies that were seemingly used to transfer David’s body, Hopkins purchased

       two pairs of cleaning gloves.

[22]   Therefore, there was sufficient evidence Fouts committed failure to report

       human remains.

       II. Admission of Evidence
       A.      Standard of Review
[23]   The trial court has broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility of

       evidence. Small v. State, 632 N.E.2d 779, 782 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994), trans.

       denied. We will disturb its ruling only upon a showing of abuse of that

       discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion may occur if the trial court’s decision is

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-917| April 24, 2023          Page 11 of 17
       clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the

       court, or if the court has misinterpreted the law. Baxter v. State, 734 N.E.2d 642,

       645 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).

[24]   But even if a trial court abuses its discretion by admitting challenged evidence,

       we will not reverse the conviction if the admission of evidence constitutes

       harmless error. Sugg v. State, 991 N.E.2d 601, 607 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans.

       denied. Error in the admission of evidence is harmless if it does not affect the

       substantial rights of the defendant. See McVey v. State, 863 N.E.2d 434, 440 (Ind.

       Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. In determining whether an evidentiary ruling has

       affected a defendant’s substantial rights, we assess the probable impact of the

       evidence on the factfinder. Mathis v. State, 859 N.E.2d 1275, 1280 (Ind. Ct. App.

       2007).

       B.       Testimony
[25]   Fouts challenges the admission of the following testimony from Detective

       Lockhart:

                I asked her or I stated to her you have to know at this point we
                know that you killed . . . David and there was a pause and she
                said, I know.

       Tr., Vol. 5 at 217. Fouts did not raise a contemporaneous objection to this

       testimony at trial; however, Fouts contends the admission of the testimony

       constitutes fundamental error. The fundamental error exception to the

       contemporaneous-objection requirement applies only “when the error

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-917| April 24, 2023            Page 12 of 17
       constitutes a blatant violation of basic principles, the harm or potential for harm

       is substantial, and the resulting error denies the defendant fundamental due

       process.” Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204, 207 (Ind. 2010) (quotation omitted).

       The alleged error must either make a fair trial impossible or constitute clearly

       blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process. Id. The

       fundamental error exception is “extremely narrow” and reaches only those

       errors that are so blatant the trial judge should have taken action sua

       sponte. Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1281 (Ind. 2014), cert. denied, 574 U.S.

       1091 (2015).

[26]   Fouts argues her statement to Detective Lockhart was a confession and not

       supported by sufficient corpus delicti. 5 In Indiana, to support the introduction of

       a defendant’s confession into evidence, the corpus delicti of the crime must be

       established by independent evidence of both (1) the occurrence of the specific

       kind of injury and (2) someone’s criminal act as the cause of the injury. Williams

       v. State, 837 N.E.2d 615, 617 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. That

       independent evidence need not be shown beyond a reasonable doubt; rather,

       5
         At the preliminary hearing, the trial court determined that Fouts’ statement was neither a confession nor
       admission. See Tr., Vol. 2 at 90-92. “A confession is the admission of guilt by the defendant of all the
       necessary elements of the crime of which he is charged.” Worthington v. State, 409 N.E.2d 1261, 1271 (Ind.
       Ct. App. 1980). Conversely, an admission “merely admits some fact which tends to connect the defendant
       with the alleged offense.” Parsons v. State, 166 Ind.App 152, 333 N.E.2d 871, 873 (1975). However, the
       distinction is immaterial to issues of corpus delicti since our case law applies the corpus delicti requirement to
       the introduction of admissions as well as confessions. Watts v. State, 229 Ind. 80, 95 N.E.2d 570, 579 (1950).
       We note the State does not argue the statement was not a confession; instead, the State contends there was
       sufficient corpus delicti. Because we determine there was sufficient corpus delicti, we need not determine
       whether Fouts’ response to Detective Lockhart constituted an admission, a confession, or neither.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-917| April 24, 2023                                    Page 13 of 17
       the evidence need only provide an inference that a crime was committed. Id.

       Such an inference may be established through circumstantial evidence. Id.

[27]   In Shinnick v. State, our supreme court explained that the corpus delicti required

       to have a confession admitted is not the same as the corpus delicti required to

       sustain a conviction. 76 N.E.3d 841, 844 (Ind. 2017). To admit a confession, the

       State need only present sufficient evidence to create “an inference that the crime

       charged was committed”; it is not required to prove all the elements of a crime

       prior to the introduction of a confession. Id.

[28]   Here, Fouts was charged with conspiracy to commit murder and failure to

       report human remains. We conclude the totality of independent evidence

       established an inference that the crimes charged occurred. As highlighted in the

       sufficiency of the evidence section, supra ¶¶ 12-22, the State presented evidence

       showing David died due to foul play, David’s body was moved after death,

       Fouts and Hopkins were involved in David’s death, and they conspired together

       to commit the murder.

[29]   Given the evidence presented, we conclude the corpus delicti rule was satisfied

       and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Detective Lockhart’s

       testimony.

       III. Prosecutorial Misconduct
[30]   Fouts contends the prosecutor engaged in misconduct in the closing arguments.

       In reviewing a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, we first determine whether

       misconduct occurred, and then, if there was misconduct, whether under all of
       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-917| April 24, 2023        Page 14 of 17
       the circumstances the misconduct placed the defendant in a position of grave

       peril to which he otherwise would not have been subjected. Castillo v. State, 974

       N.E.2d 458, 468 (Ind. 2012). Whether a prosecutor’s statements constitute

       misconduct is measured by reference to case law and the Rules of Professional

       Conduct. Cooper v. State, 854 N.E.2d 831, 835 (Ind. 2006). The degree of peril is

       measured by the probable persuasive effect of the misconduct on the jury’s

       decision. Id.

[31]   To preserve a claim of prosecutorial misconduct for appeal, “a defendant must

       not only raise a contemporaneous objection, he must also request an

       admonishment and, if the admonishment is not given or is insufficient to cure

       the error, then he must request a mistrial.” Washington v. State, 902 N.E.2d 280,

       289-90 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied. Failure to request an admonishment

       or a mistrial waives the claim of prosecutorial misconduct unless the defendant

       can demonstrate the misconduct amounted to fundamental error. Castillo, 974

       N.E.2d at 468.

[32]   Fouts failed to preserve her claim for appeal. Therefore, she must establish the

       grounds for prosecutorial misconduct as well as the grounds for fundamental

       error. Fouts argues the prosecutor’s references to Fouts’ statement to Detective

       Lockhart constituted misconduct. In closing argument, the prosecutor stated:

               Direct evidence of a crime includes the confessions and
               admissions of the accused. A confession need not be an explicit
               and direct admission of guilt . . . to be considered direct evidence.
               . . . So, even if you want to assume or believe that that is the only

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-917| April 24, 2023           Page 15 of 17
               piece of direct evidence in this case, it’s a pretty strong one. The
               admission to Detective Lockhart.

       Tr., Vol. 6 at 85. Fouts contends that “[b]y agreement of the parties, there was

       no confession [and] by telling th[e] jury repeatedly that there was a

       confession[,]” the prosecutor committed misconduct amounting to fundamental

       error. Appellant’s Br. at 43. We disagree.

[33]   Arguments made by attorneys at trial are not evidence, Bass v. State, 947 N.E.2d

       456, 462 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied, and here the trial court instructed

       the jury of this prior to the parties’ closing arguments. However, the prosecutor

       is required to confine closing argument to comments based upon the evidence

       presented in the record. Lambert v. State, 743 N.E.2d 719, 734 (Ind. 2001). The

       prosecutor may argue both law and facts and offer conclusions based upon his

       analysis of the evidence. Id.

[34]   Here, Fouts’ statement to Detective Lockhart was admitted into evidence.

       Thus, the prosecutor’s comments were based upon evidence presented in the

       record. And although the prosecutor calls the statement an admission, we do

       not believe that is an unfair characterization. See Cooper, 854 N.E.2d at

       837 (stating prosecutor’s remarks in closing argument that defendant was a

       “back shooter” and “woman beater” were fair commentary on the facts

       introduced at trial); Wrinkles v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1179, 1197 (Ind.

       2001) (holding prosecutor’s references to defendant as a “psychopath” and

       “sociopathic” were fair characterizations of the evidence).

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-917| April 24, 2023           Page 16 of 17
[35]   Further, even if the prosecutor’s comments were considered misconduct,

       because Fouts’ statement was in evidence and the jury was instructed that

       attorneys’ arguments are not evidence, we cannot say that these comments were

       “so prejudicial to the defendant’s rights as to make a fair trial impossible.” Ryan

       v. State, 9 N.E.3d 663, 668 (Ind. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). We

       conclude there is no fundamental error.

       Conclusion
[36]   We conclude the State presented sufficient evidence to support Fouts’

       convictions, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence,

       and the State’s closing argument did not amount to fundamental error.

       Accordingly, we affirm.

[37]   Affirmed.

       Riley, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-917| April 24, 2023         Page 17 of 17