MEMORANDUM DECISION
Jan 29 2015, 9:51 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as
precedent or cited before any court except for the
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Jill M. Acklin Gregory F. Zoeller
McGrath, LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Carmel, Indiana
Katherine Modesitt Cooper
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Deaundra Patterson, January 29, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Cause No.
48A02-1404-CR-237
v. Appeal from the Madison Circuit
Court, The Honorable Dennis D.
Carroll, Judge
State of Indiana, Cause No. 48C06-1305-FB-1079
Appellee-Plaintiff
Najam, Judge.
Statement of the Case
[1] Deaundra Patterson appeals his convictions, following a jury trial, for robbery,
as a Class B felony; battery, as a Class C felony; battery, as a Class D felony;
resisting law enforcement, as a Class D felony; and operating a motor vehicle
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1404-CR-237 | January 29, 2015 Page 1 of 7
while privileges are forfeited for life, a Class C felony. Patterson presents one
issue for our review, namely, whether certain statements made by the
prosecutor during the rebuttal portion of closing arguments amounted to
fundamental error.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] From May 5, 2013, to May 27, 2013, Patterson committed four armed
robberies in Anderson, Indiana.1 He robbed the same gas station twice, on May
5 and on May 15, and he also robbed a discount tobacco store on May 12 and a
liquor store on May 27. In all four robberies, Patterson carried a handgun and
a plastic bag, and, in all four, he demanded money and Newport cigarettes.
During the first robbery of the gas station, Patterson threatened the lives of the
employees, and he also robbed a customer, who entered the station during the
commission of the robbery. And, during the subsequent robbery of the gas
station, Patterson fired a warning shot at an employee and robbed him of his
wallet. Police recovered a .40 caliber shell casing and a .40 caliber round
lodged in the store’s fuel pump control box.
[4] Over the course of the robberies, the victims of the robberies observed that
Patterson wore a number of clothing items, including: baggy clothes, black
1
Patterson committed four robberies but was not identified as the assailant until after the fourth.
Nevertheless, for the sake of clarity and ease of writing, we refer to Patterson by name.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1404-CR-237 | January 29, 2015 Page 2 of 7
pants, a red hoodie sweatshirt, a ski mask, a camouflage mask, a tan jacket, and
a puffy winter coat. During some, but not all, of the robberies, Patterson also
wore black gloves.
[5] Patterson fled from all four robberies, but police were unable to locate him after
the first three. However, after the fourth, witnesses communicated to police
that Patterson had fled north in a red truck, and, on his way to the scene, a
responding officer observed a speeding red Chevrolet Tahoe. He pursued the
Tahoe, with lights and siren activated, but the vehicle fled and the officer lost
track of it. Not long after, another officer, Matt Jarrett with the Anderson
Police Department, located the Tahoe parked in a driveway, and he observed
Patterson knocking on the front door of the residence. Officer Jarrett drew his
weapon, and ordered Patterson to turn around with his hands in the air.
Patterson, however, placed his hands into his pockets and ran towards the
Tahoe. Officer Jarrett approached the vehicle, knocked on the door, and
demanded that Patterson stop, but Patterson backed out of the driveway
quickly, which caused the vehicle to strike the officer and knock him down.
Officer Jarrett fired two rounds at Patterson, but he continued to flee.
[6] Sergeant Kevin Earley, also with the Anderson Police Department, then began
pursuit of Patterson with his lights and sirens activated. Patterson led Sergeant
Earley on a high-speed chase that concluded when Patterson crashed the Tahoe
into a telephone pole. Officers took Patterson into custody, and, when they
did, officers recovered on his person a loaded .40 caliber Smith and Wesson
handgun magazine. Also, pursuant to a search warrant for the Tahoe, officers
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1404-CR-237 | January 29, 2015 Page 3 of 7
recovered from the vehicle two bandanas; a pair of black leather gloves; a black
ski mask; a black coat with a gray hood; a red and black sweatshirt; a plastic
bag; an empty Newport cigarette pack; a black and silver .40 caliber Smith and
Wesson handgun; and a loaded Smith and Wesson .40 caliber magazine.
[7] Police also obtained and reviewed surveillance video from all four robberies.
From those videos, detectives were able to determine that Patterson used the
Smith and Wesson handgun in at least two of the robberies. Further, they
observed that Patterson conducted all four robberies in the same way. And, in
one of the videos, the distinctive soles of the robbery perpetrator’s shoes were
visible. From this, detectives were able to determine, after comparing those
soles to approximately 300 samples, that they matched only the soles of the
shoes taken from Patterson at the police station following his arrest.
[8] On May 31, 2013, the State charged Patterson with five counts of robbery, as
Class B felonies; battery, as a Class C felony; battery as a Class D felony;
resisting law enforcement, as a Class D felony; and operating a motor vehicle
while privileges are forfeited for life, a Class C felony. Patterson’s jury trial was
held over the span of five days in January and February 2014. At trial, the State
called seventeen law-enforcement officers, who testified about the investigation
they conducted, and several other witnesses. Two of the witnesses, employees
present at the first robbery of the gas station, identified Patterson as the
perpetrator. During the rebuttal portion of the State’s closing argument, the
prosecutor stated, “They did a very thorough investigation, our Anderson
Police Department.” Tr. at 1173. Patterson did not object to this statement.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1404-CR-237 | January 29, 2015 Page 4 of 7
[9] At the conclusion of the trial, the jury convicted Patterson as charged, and the
trial court sentenced him to an aggregate, executed term of seventy-three years
in the Indiana Department of Correction. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[10] Patterson contends that the prosecutor’s statement regarding the Anderson
Police Department’s investigation, to which he did not object, constituted
fundamental error. Specifically, Patterson argues that prosecutorial misconduct
occurred because the prosecution bolstered its case by “vouching” for seventeen
witnesses, the officers, whose testimony “was at the heart of the case.”
Appellant’s Br. 5-6. Thus, he reasons, the statement by the prosecutor placed
him in grave peril. We cannot agree. Even if we assume that the prosecutor’s
comments were inappropriate, they do not amount to fundamental error.
[11] As our supreme court recently explained:
In reviewing a claim of prosecutorial misconduct properly raised in the
trial court, we determine (1) whether misconduct occurred, and if so,
(2) “whether the misconduct, under all of the circumstances, placed
the defendant in a position of grave peril to which he or she would not
have been subjected” otherwise. Cooper v. State, 854 N.E.2d 831, 835
(Ind. 2006), quoted in Castillo v. State, 974 N.E.2d 458, 468 (Ind. 2012).
A prosecutor has the duty to present a persuasive final argument and
thus placing a defendant in grave peril, by itself, is not misconduct.
Mahla v. State, 496 N.E.2d 568, 572 (Ind. 1986). “Whether a
prosecutor’s argument constitutes misconduct is measured by reference
to case law and the Rules of Professional Conduct. The gravity of
peril is measured by the probable persuasive effect of the misconduct
on the jury’s decision rather than the degree of impropriety of the
conduct.” Cooper, 854 N.E.2d at 835 (emphasis added) (citations
omitted). To preserve a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1404-CR-237 | January 29, 2015 Page 5 of 7
defendant must—at the time the alleged misconduct occurs—request
an admonishment to the jury, and if further relief is desired, move for a
mistrial. Id.; see also Maldonado v. State, 265 Ind. 492, 355 N.E.2d 843,
848 (1976).
Our standard of review is different where a claim of prosecutorial
misconduct has been procedurally defaulted for failure to properly
raise the claim in the trial court, that is, waived for failure to preserve
the claim of error. Booher v. State, 773 N.E.2d 814, 817-18 (Ind. 2002).
The defendant must establish not only the grounds for prosecutorial
misconduct but must also establish that the prosecutorial misconduct
constituted fundamental error. Id. at 818. Fundamental error is an
extremely narrow exception to the waiver rule where the defendant
faces the heavy burden of showing that the alleged errors are so
prejudicial to the defendant’s rights as to “make a fair trial
impossible.” Benson v. State, 762 N.E.2d 748, 756 (Ind. 2002), quoted
in Castillo, 974 N.E.2d at 468 and Cooper, 854 N.E.2d at 835. In other
words, to establish fundamental error, the defendant must show that,
under the circumstances, the trial judge erred in not sua sponte raising
the issue because alleged errors (a) “constitute clearly blatant
violations of basic and elementary principles of due process” and (b)
“present an undeniable and substantial potential for harm.” Id. The
element of such harm is not established by the fact of ultimate
conviction but rather “depends upon whether [the defendant’s] right to
a fair trial was detrimentally affected by the denial of procedural
opportunities for the ascertainment of truth to which he otherwise
would have been entitled.” Townsend v. State, 632 N.E.2d 727, 730
(Ind. 1994) (quoting Hart v. State, 578 N.E.2d 336, 338 (Ind. 1991)). In
evaluating the issue of fundamental error, our task in this case is to
look at the alleged misconduct in the context of all that happened and
all relevant information given to the jury—including evidence
admitted at trial, closing argument, and jury instructions—to
determine whether the misconduct had such an undeniable and
substantial effect on the jury’s decision that a fair trial was impossible.
See Boesch v. State, 778 N.E.2d 1276, 1279 (Ind. 2002); Townsend, 632
N.E.2d at 730; see, e.g., Castillo, 974 N.E.2d at 469 n. 11 (noting closing
arguments are perceived as partisan advocacy).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1404-CR-237 | January 29, 2015 Page 6 of 7
We stress that “[a] finding of fundamental error essentially means that
the trial judge erred . . . by not acting when he or she should
have . . . .” Whiting v. State, 969 N.E.2d 24, 34 (Ind. 2012).
Fundamental error is meant to permit appellate courts a means to
correct the most egregious and blatant trial errors that otherwise would
have been procedurally barred, not to provide a second bite at the
apple for defense counsel who ignorantly, carelessly, or strategically
fail to preserve an error. See Baer v. State, 942 N.E.2d 80, 99 (Ind.
2011) (noting it is “highly unlikely” to prevail on a claim of
fundamental error relating to prosecutorial misconduct); Stevens v.
State, 691 N.E.2d 412, 420 n. 2 (Ind. 1997); Wilson v. State, 222 Ind. 63,
51 N.E.2d 848, 856 (1943).
Ryan v. State, 9 N.E.3d 663, 667-68 (Ind. 2014).
[12] Here, we cannot say that the trial court erred by not acting when it should have.
Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the prosecutor’s statement,
“[t]hey did a very thorough investigation, our Anderson Police Department[,]”
was misconduct, it was neither blatant nor egregious. Tr. at 1173. Further,
even if the statement amounted to misconduct, it could not have had an
undeniable and substantial effect on the jury’s decision, so as to make a fair trial
impossible. Patterson received a five-day jury trial, and volumes of evidence
were provided to the jury. Even if some of the evidence tying Patterson to his
crimes was circumstantial, it was nevertheless overwhelming. In other words,
the prosecutor’s statement did not deny Patterson a fair trial.
[13] Affirmed.
Mathias, J., and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1404-CR-237 | January 29, 2015 Page 7 of 7
Deaundra Patterson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Combined Opinion