Court Opinion

ID: 9897295
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:09:48.487451+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:46.644968
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                       Sep 07 2023, 8:55 am

                                                                           CLERK
                                                                       Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                          Court of Appeals
                                                                            and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                     ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Mark K. Leeman                                             Theodore E. Rokita
Leeman Law Office                                          Attorney General
Logansport, Indiana                                        George P. Sherman
                                                           Supervising Deputy Attorney
                                                           General
                                                           Indianapolis, Indiana

                                            IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Calvin Carl Edward Burton,                                 September 7, 2023
Appellant-Defendant,                                       Court of Appeals Case No.
                                                           23A-CR-526
        v.                                                 Appeal from the
                                                           Cass Circuit Court
State of Indiana,                                          The Honorable
Appellee-Plaintiff                                         James K. Muehlhausen, Judge
                                                           Trial Court Cause No.
                                                           09D01-2105-F6-115

                                  Opinion by Judge Vaidik
                              Judges Bailey and Mathias concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-526 | September 7, 2023                           Page 1 of 8
      Vaidik, Judge.

      Case Summary
[1]   The State charged Calvin Burton with Level 6 felony dealing in marijuana. A

      jury trial was held, and during voir dire, one prospective juror told another that

      Burton was involved in a car accident twenty years earlier that killed a man and

      that Burton “should be sitting in prison.” Three prospective jurors heard this

      comment, and Burton moved to strike them for cause. The trial court

      questioned each individually and, based on their answers that they could

      remain fair and impartial, denied the motion. Burton now appeals, contending

      his constitutional rights to an impartial jury were violated.

[2]   While we are concerned about the prejudicial nature of these comments, we are

      bound by our Supreme Court’s holding in Kindred v. State, 524 N.E.2d 279, 288

      (Ind. 1988). There, a prospective juror stated in front of others that the

      defendant had previously escaped from jail. But because the challenged

      prospective jurors all stated during questioning that they could remain

      impartial, our Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s

      motion to strike. Given this controlling precedent, we affirm Burton’s

      conviction.

      Facts and Procedural History
[3]   On May 11, 2021, deputies with the Cass County Sheriff’s Department stopped

      a white Chevrolet Tahoe for speeding. Burton was in the passenger seat.
      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-526 | September 7, 2023         Page 2 of 8
      Deputies conducted a dog sniff of the car, and the dog alerted to the presence of

      drugs. A search of the car revealed a large amount of marijuana. Burton and the

      driver were both arrested. Deputies then searched Burton’s home and found a

      large amount of marijuana and $10,000 in cash.

[4]   The State charged Burton with Level 6 felony dealing in marijuana and alleged

      he is a habitual offender. A jury trial was held in January 2023. On the first day

      of trial, after several rounds of voir dire, five jurors had been selected.1 The trial

      court took a break, and the seated jurors—Tim Carmichael, Kelly Ayers, Lori

      Parker, Tina Collins, and Robert Carlson—were sent to the jury room to wait.

      While in the jury room, Carmichael and Ayers began speaking. Carmichael

      told Ayers that he recognized Burton’s name, that Burton had caused “a car

      wreck 20 years ago that killed a gentleman,” and that Burton “should be sitting

      in prison.” Tr. Vol. II p. 132.

[5]   Upon being alerted to these remarks, the court twice questioned each seated

      juror individually. Carmichael acknowledged that he made a statement about

      Burton’s involvement in a fatal car accident. Collins was in the restroom at the

      time and did not hear the remarks, but the other three—Ayers, Carlson, and

      Parker—all stated they had heard at least some portion of the conversation. The

      court then asked Ayers if the comments had “any effect on [his] ability to listen

      1
       Another prospective juror had also been selected but was dismissed before voir dire ended after the court
      discovered he had failed to disclose his criminal record.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-526 | September 7, 2023                              Page 3 of 8
to the evidence in this case and fairly and impartially apply and reach a

verdict.” Id. The following exchange occurred:

        MR. AYERS: I would like to think that it would not. I don’t
        know the defendant. I’d have no idea of that other than just what
        that gentleman said. So . . . .

        THE COURT: Okay. When you say you would like to think it
        wouldn’t, is there a possibility it could?

        MR. AYERS: You know, Judge, I mean, just being honest I
        don’t know that I can give an answer anything other than what I
        just did. I would like to think that I, you know, I’m a prudent
        person that can listen to what’s in front of me, this is what our
        task is on this particular case no matter what his past is, and I
        would like to think that I could do that.

        THE COURT: Okay. But if you’re pressed, could you just say
        yes or no to that?

        MR. AYERS: Can you ask the question one more time?

        THE COURT: Can you fairly and impartially listen to the
        evidence in this call, in this case and reach a verdict based solely
        upon the evidence and the laws instructed by the Court without
        being prejudiced by anything you heard Mr. Carmichael say?

        MR. AYERS: My answer would be yes.

Id. at 132-33.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-526 | September 7, 2023           Page 4 of 8
[6]   The court similarly asked Carlson if Carmichael’s comments would affect his

      impartiality, and Carlson stated, “No, because they weren’t, I don’t know if

      they’re factual or not. Could be his opinion.” Id. at 123. Parker also stated, “I

      don’t really think it will make a difference because I don’t know, like, I don’t if

      that’s true. I don’t know the facts. I don’t know anything about that other than

      what I heard him say.” Id. at 134.

[7]   The court and parties agreed to strike Carmichael for cause. Defense counsel

      also asked the court to strike Ayers, Carlson, and Parker for cause. At this

      point, he could not use peremptory challenges on Ayers, Carlson, or Parker

      because the trial court was using a voir dire procedure that required the parties

      to exercise challenges after each round of questioning and any prospective juror

      not stricken would be accepted and not subject to further challenge.2 The State

      argued that given all three stated they could remain fair and impartial, there

      was not enough to strike them for cause. Even so, the State suggested the court

      “give [the parties] a chance to use [peremptory challenges] again.” Id. at 126.

      The court denied defense counsel’s motion to strike the jurors for cause and did

      not allow the use of peremptory challenges.

[8]   Defense counsel then moved for a mistrial, which was also denied. Voir dire

      continued, and seven jurors (six plus an alternate) were eventually empaneled,

      including Ayers, Carlson, and Parker. Following the trial, the jury found

      2
          See Marsh v. State, 396 N.E.2d 883, 886 (Ind. 1979) (explaining this procedure in more detail).

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-526 | September 7, 2023                                  Page 5 of 8
       Burton guilty of Level 6 felony dealing in marijuana.3 Burton then admitted

       being a habitual offender. The trial court sentenced him to two-and-a-half years

       for the Level 6 felony, enhanced by six years for being a habitual offender, for a

       total of eight-and-a-half years.

[9]    Burton now appeals.

       Discussion and Decision
[10]   Burton contends he was denied his right to an impartial jury when the trial

       court denied his for-cause challenges to Ayers, Carlson, and Parker. The right

       to a fair trial before an impartial jury is “a cornerstone of our criminal justice

       system” and protected by both the state and federal constitutions. Whiting v.

       State, 969 N.E.2d 24, 28 (Ind. 2012). “[A] constitutionally impartial juror is one

       who is able and willing to lay aside his or her prior knowledge and opinions,

       follow the law as instructed by the trial judge, and render a verdict based solely

       on the evidence presented in court.” Id. Removing prospective jurors—whether

       peremptorily or for cause—who cannot conscientiously apply the law and find

       the facts is the mechanism parties and trial courts use to achieve an impartial

       jury. Oswalt v. State, 19 N.E.3d 241, 245-46 (Ind. 2014). The trial court has the

       “inherent authority and responsibility to dismiss bias[ed] jurors for cause,” and

       3
         Burton was also charged with, and found guilty of, Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana, but the
       trial court did not enter a conviction due to double-jeopardy concerns.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-526 | September 7, 2023                            Page 6 of 8
       on appeal we afford substantial deference to its decision. Whiting, 969 N.E.2d at

       29.

[11]   In arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to strike, Burton

       emphasizes the prejudicial nature of Carmichael’s comments, noting he accused

       Burton of causing someone’s death and stated he “should be sitting in prison.”

       We agree these statements are prejudicial. We also note that voir dire was

       ongoing, and there is no indication in the record that remedial measures would

       have greatly affected the proceedings. The court could have easily stricken these

       prospective jurors and continued voir dire with the remaining members of the

       jury panel, or at least allowed Burton to use his peremptory challenges as the

       State suggested. It did neither. Given the constitutional interests at stake here,

       these would have been better courses of action.

[12]   But as the State points out, in Kindred v. State, 524 N.E.2d 279, 288 (Ind. 1988),

       our Supreme Court rejected an impartial-jury challenge involving arguably

       worse facts. There, during voir dire a prospective juror stated, in front of other

       prospective jurors, that she was aware the defendant had previously escaped

       from jail. The defendant asked the court to strike all those who heard the

       comment, but the trial court denied the motion. Our Supreme Court affirmed

       this ruling, noting the trial court “questioned the prospective jurors regarding

       the possibility of prejudice, admonished the jurors to put aside preconceived

       notions, and ascertained the willingness of each to base his decision solely upon

       evidence presented at trial.” Id. The Court determined these “corrective actions

       . . . eliminate[d] any prejudice which may have occurred.” Id.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-526 | September 7, 2023       Page 7 of 8
[13]   We are constrained by that holding. As in Kindred, the trial court here

       questioned the prospective jurors about Carmichael’s comments and received

       confirmation from each that they could set aside the comments and render a

       fair and impartial verdict. As such, we find no reversible error.

[14]   Affirmed.

       Bailey, J., and Mathias, J., concur.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-526 | September 7, 2023      Page 8 of 8