Alton Neville v. State of Indiana
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 527
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Neville convicted of murder and carrying a handgun without a license; aggregate sentence 55 years; appeals alleging prosecutorial misconduct, improper admission of evidence, and sentence inappropriate.
- Witnesses Lane and Wilburn identified Neville in lineups; Hood was shot in the alley behind Lane/Wilburn’s West 31st Street home; Neville seen in a red truck in the area with a gun and fled after the shooting.
- No shell casings found at the scene; no firearm recovered; Neville’s cell phone records place him in the murder area.
- Prosecutor allegedly commented on wrongful convictions during voir dire and made closing arguments that vouched for witnesses, misstated evidence, and inflamed passions; some comments deemed improper.
- Evidence included Neville’s recorded police interrogation (State’s Ex. 55-A); Neville contends statements lacked factual basis and were improper; court found no fundamental error arising from these admissions.
- Court affirmed Neville’s 55-year murder sentence under Appellate Rule 7(B), holding the advisory sentence appropriate given his criminal history and nature of the offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct during voir dire and closing | Neville | Neville argues misconduct violated fair-trial rights | Not fundamental error; misconduct present but not grounds for reversal |
| Prosecutorial vouching for witnesses | Neville | Prosecutor vouched for credibility | Not fundamental error; within permissible argument based on evidence |
| Misrepresentation/presentation of evidence | Neville | State overstated or misstated evidence | Two improper comments identified but not fundamental error; defense countered in closing |
| Admission of police-interview statements (State's Ex. 55-A) | Neville | Statements were factual assertions not supported by evidence | Fundamental error not shown; admission did not compel reversal |
| Sentence inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B) | Neville | Sentence should be reduced due to character | Fifty-five year advisory sentence not inappropriate given history and offense |
Key Cases Cited
- Booher v. State, 773 N.E.2d 814 (Ind. 2002) (grave peril and fundamental error standards for prosecutorial misconduct)
- Cooper v. State, 854 N.E.2d 831 (Ind. 2006) (how to assess prosecutorial misconduct in context of fair trial)
- Spangler v. State, 498 N.E.2d 1206 (Ind. 1986) (prosecutor may not argue facts not in evidence)
- Limp v. State, 431 N.E.2d 784 (Ind. 1982) (prosecutor’s closing argument improper if inflaming passions)
- Johnson v. State, 453 N.E.2d 365 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983) (prosecutor may not inflame jury; closing arguments must be grounded in evidence)