ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
JON AARSTAD STEVE CARTER
Vanderburgh County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana
Evansville, Indiana
RICHARD C. WEBSTER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
__________________________________________________________________
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
CHAD LEROY GOODWIN, )
)
Appellant-(Defendant), ) 82S01-0302-CR-73
) in the Supreme Court
v. )
) 82A01-0112-CR-483
STATE OF INDIANA, ) in the Court of Appeals
)
Appellee-(Plaintiff). )
APPEAL FROM THE VANDERBURGH SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Robert J. Tornatta, Judge
Cause No. 82D02-0108-CF-575
February 21, 2003
SHEPARD, Chief Justice.
A jury found appellant Chad Leroy Goodwin guilty of armed robbery for
holding up a Pantry store in Evansville, and the trial court sentenced him
to ten years in prison. The Court of Appeals found certain evidence
wrongly admitted and reversed. We grant transfer and affirm the trial
court.
The State’s evidence was considerable. Aside from the store clerk
who identified Goodwin as the perpetrator, the State called a number of
Goodwin’s friends. One of these acquaintances described Goodwin’s
announcement that he intended to commit the robbery. In an apparent effort
to portray this announcement as puffery not to be taken seriously, defense
counsel asked the witness, “Did you ever know him to do anything like that
during the time you were dating?” The witness replied, “I had known him to
break into cars and do little things but I’ve never known him to actually
rob a Pantry.” Tr. at 47-48.
Other friends testified about how Goodwin later described the
robbery, what he was wearing, what he took from the clerk, what he did with
the weapon, and so on. The prosecution queried these witnesses about
Goodwin’s other exploits, which did largely turn out to be non-violent
larcenies like smashing car windows to steal the stereos.
The defense did not object to any of this evidence. A divided Court
of Appeals held that its admission constituted fundamental error requiring
reversal. Goodwin v. State, 777 N.E.2d 1216 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (Baker,
J., dissenting).
Failure to object at trial customarily means that a party has not
preserved any claim for appeal. The fundamental error exception to this
rule permits reversal when there has been a “blatant violation of basic
principles” that denies a defendant “fundamental due process.” Wilson v.
State, 514 N.E.2d 282, 284 (Ind. 1987).
The evidence elicited from Goodwin’s friends did not qualify under
this standard. Neither did the prosecutor’s questions suggesting that
Goodwin needed somehow to straighten out his life nor his argument to the
jury that it should “[h]elp us help Chad and return with a verdict of
guilty,” to which there were likewise no objections. Tr. at 170.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
DICKSON, SULLIVAN, BOEHM, and RUCKER, JJ., concur.