Antonio M. Merritt v. State of Indiana, 99 N.E.3d 706

In October 2015 Antonio M. Merritt allegedly shot and killed Jordan White at Merritt’s residence; two eyewitnesses (Elizie Wombles and Rusell Church) later testified at the first trial.
The first jury trial ended in a hung jury. Between trials, Merritt told inmate Ryan Ivy he shot White and sold the gun; he also attempted to hire Ivy to kill Wombles.
Before the second trial, Wombles and Church were unavailable and the trial court admitted their prior trial testimony into evidence (read aloud) without objection.
Ivy testified at the second trial about Merritt’s statements and the attempted hire; the jury convicted Merritt of murder and the trial court adjudicated him a habitual offender.
Merritt appealed, arguing the trial court committed fundamental error by not sua sponte admonishing the jury to avoid speculating about why the two witnesses were absent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Merritt)	Held
Whether the trial court committed fundamental error by failing to sua sponte instruct the jury not to speculate about unavailable witnesses	No obligation to sua sponte admonish; parties should request limiting instructions	Absence of admonishment let jury infer Merritt caused witnesses’ absence (given Ivy’s testimony), denying fair trial	No fundamental error; court had no duty to give such admonishment absent a timely request

Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. 2010) (defines narrow scope of fundamental-error doctrine and rejects routine reversal for nonconstitutional evidentiary errors)
Taylor v. State, 86 N.E.3d 157 (Ind. 2017) (appellant must show trial court should have raised issue sua sponte to prove fundamental error)
Humphrey v. State, 680 N.E.2d 836 (Ind. 1997) (parties must request jury admonishments; courts not required to act sua sponte)
McCollum v. State, 582 N.E.2d 804 (Ind. 1991) (admonishments can draw unwanted attention to evidence; strategic risk best left to counsel)