Court Opinion

ID: 9735633
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:26:24.52542+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:00.621181
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Justice,
concurring in result.
I would not reach the issue of whether Richard Reed’s prior representation of Hiatt required disqualification in this case. Defendant did not invoke the special prosecutor statute, Ind.Code § 33-14-1-6, or otherwise seek the disqualification of the prosecutor. As such, the issue is waived on appeal, Hubbard v. State, 518 N.E.2d 782, 784 (Ind.1988), unless a claim of fundamental error or ineffective assistance of counsel can be established. I find no basis for an ineffective assistance claim in that sound strategic considerations can easily be envisioned to support defense counsel’s decision not to seek Reed’s disqualification. Id.
As to fundamental error inquiry, I would find it sufficient to say that defendant did not avail himself of the special prosecutor statute to challenge the prosecutor, presumably for sound strategic reasons. Having raised no objection to Reed’s prosecution of the case at any point from investigation through indictment, trial and sentencing, defendant cannot now be heard to claim that Reed’s presence amounted to a “substantial blatant violation of basic principles [which] rendered] the trial unfair.” Hart v. State, 578 N.E.2d 336, 337 (Ind.1991).
In all other respects, I concur with the majority opinion.
SHEPARD, C.J., concurs.