MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Jul 09 2015, 9:31 am
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
Kurt A. Young Gregory F. Zoeller
Nashville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Chandra K. Hein
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Joshua Woodson, July 9, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Cause No.
49A04-1410-CR-475
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
Cause No. 49F18-1204-FD-24015
State of Indiana,
Appellee-Plaintiff. The Honorable David Hooper,
Judge Pro-Tem
Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1410-CR-475| July 9, 2015 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Joshua Woodson appeals his conviction for Class D felony operating a vehicle
while suspended as an habitual traffic violator. We affirm.
Issue
[2] Woodson raises one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court properly
denied his motion for a mistrial.
Facts
[3] Woodson was an habitual traffic violator, and he was aware that his driving
privileges were suspended. On April 11, 2012, Officer Marc Klonne of the
Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department saw a vehicle at a gas station, ran
the license plate, and discovered that the owner, Woodson, was an habitual
traffic violator. Officer Klonne then saw Woodson get in the vehicle and begin
to pull forward. Officer Klonne stopped Woodson and arrested him.
[4] The State charged Woodson with Class D felony operating a vehicle while
suspended as an habitual traffic violator. During Officer Klonne’s deposition,
he testified that Woodson’s vehicle did not move. At Woodson’s jury trial,
Officer Klonne testified that Woodson’s vehicle pulled forward a couple of feet.
The State questioned Officer Klonne about the discrepancy between his trial
testimony and his deposition testimony. Officer Klonne acknowledged the
discrepancy, stated that before the deposition he had very briefly reviewed the
probable cause affidavit, and stated that before his trial testimony he had
reviewed the report at length. Officer Klonne testified that his trial testimony
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1410-CR-475| July 9, 2015 Page 2 of 5
was “based off the probable cause statement.” Tr. p. 56. Woodson objected to
the officer’s testimony, and the trial court stated: “Ladies and gentlemen I’m
going to strike . . . ask you not to consider what he’s basing anything on, um, he
has talked about what he reviewed, but he is not to testify as to what’s in any
documents. I will let him give what his testimony is today.” Tr. p. 56. After a
discussion between the trial court and the parties, the trial court also said, “All
right, again, I’ve given the jury instruction to disregard the officer’s statement
about anything in a report or probable cause.” Id. at 57.
[5] At some point during the trial, the parties and the trial court had an off-the-
record discussion, and Woodson requested a mistrial. The trial court later
allowed Woodson to make a record of the request. Woodson argued that “the
officer testified that his testimony today was based on his PC which is basically
saying what his PC said. Um, that’s obviously not under the rules of evidence,
not admissible. Um, we think that that is . . . it calls for a mistrial and that the,
the instruction not to consider it is not sufficient to correct the prejudice.” Id. at
80. The trial court denied Woodson’s mistrial request, and the jury found him
guilty as charged. Woodson now appeals.
Analysis
[6] Woodson argues that the trial court erred by denying his mistrial request. A
trial court is in the best position to evaluate whether a mistrial is warranted
because it can assess first-hand all relevant facts and circumstances and their
impact on the jury. Ramirez v. State, 7 N.E.3d 933, 935 (Ind. 2014). We
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1410-CR-475| July 9, 2015 Page 3 of 5
therefore review denial of a motion for mistrial only for abuse of discretion. Id.
Reversal is required only if the defendant demonstrates that he was so
prejudiced that he was placed in a position of grave peril. Inman v. State, 4
N.E.3d 190, 198 (Ind. 2014). “The gravity of the peril turns on the probable
persuasive effect of the misconduct on the jury’s decision, not on the degree of
impropriety of the conduct.” Id.
[7] Relying on Indiana Evidence Rule 803(8) and Tate v. State, 835 N.E.2d 499, 508
(Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied, Woodson argues that the probable cause
affidavit was inadmissible. Woodson contends that, even though the probable
cause affidavit was not admitted into evidence at his trial, “its contents were
placed before the jury.” Appellant’s Br. p. 7. According to Woodson, the trial
court’s admonishment regarding Officer Klonne’s testimony was insufficient to
cure any prejudice. Woodson argues that “[t]he probable impact of Klonne
vouchsafing his own testimony by referring to his police report cannot be
understated.” Id.
[8] The State points out that the probable cause affidavit was not admitted at trial
and that, pursuant to Indiana Evidence Rule 612, witnesses are entitled to use
documents to refresh their memory. Further, the trial court admonished the
jury to disregard the reference to the document, and such admonishments are
presumed to cure any error. See Johnson v. State, 901 N.E.2d 1168, 1173 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2009) (“[W]here the trial court adequately admonishes the jury, such
admonishment is presumed to cure any error that may have occurred.”). We
agree with the State. We further note that Woodson has failed to demonstrate
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1410-CR-475| July 9, 2015 Page 4 of 5
that he was so prejudiced by Officer Klonne’s brief reference to the probable
cause affidavit that he was placed in a position of grave peril. The jury was
aware of Officer Klonne’s earlier testimony and the difference in his trial
testimony and was entitled to judge his credibility. See, e.g., Roland v. State, 501
N.E.2d 1034, 1038 (Ind. 1986) (holding that a “brief statement by the police
officer did not place Appellant in the grave peril required for a mistrial”).
Woodson failed to demonstrate that Officer Klonne’s mention of the probable
cause affidavit had a probable persuasive effect on the jury’s decision. The trial
court properly denied Woodson’s motion for a mistrial.
Conclusion
[9] The trial court properly denied Woodson’s motion for a mistrial. We affirm.
[10] Affirmed.
Riley, J., and Bailey, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1410-CR-475| July 9, 2015 Page 5 of 5