Background

• Cameron was charged with class D felony domestic battery of Carson, class D felony battery of a family or household member, and class A misdemeanor battery of A.A. in Marion County.
• At trial, Carson, A.A., and Officer Daniels testified; defense cross-exam questioned Carson about stabbing Cameron and about knives in the residence.
• Exhibits included knife-related photos, admitted over State objection; A.A. testified she kept a knife under her mattress, and Cameron did not get stabbed.
• Officer Daniels testified about scene observations; Cameron was arrested after the incident and gave no initial injuries to officers.
• During closing, defense argued Carson stabbed Cameron; the State asserted there were no wounds on Cameron and sought to counter this through questioning and rebuttal.
• Cameron appealed asserting prosecutorial misconduct for comments on post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence; issue preserved only for appeal despite no contemporaneous objection.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Peters v. State, 959 N.E.2d 347 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (post-arrest silence may be non-substantive; door-opening context used)
• Salinas v. Texas, 133 S. Ct. 2174 (U.S. 2013) (pre-arrest silence not protected when not invoked earlier)
• Cooper v. State, 854 N.E.2d 831 (Ind. 2006) (prosecutorial misconduct review requires grave peril standard)
• Coleman v. State, 750 N.E.2d 370 (Ind. 2001) (grave peril and due process considerations in misconduct)
• Benson v. State, 762 N.E.2d 748 (Ind. 2002) (fundamental-error standard for prosecutorial misconduct)
• Ludack v. State, 967 N.E.2d 41 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (opening the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence through defense questioning)
• Bryant v. State, 802 N.E.2d 486 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (door-opening rationale in prosecutorial questioning context)