Austin Blaize v. State of Indiana, 2016 Ind. LEXIS 154

Austin Blaize killed two people in a confrontation at Brittany Monier’s father’s home; he was charged with murder, attempted murder, felony murder, burglary causing serious bodily injury, intimidation with a deadly weapon, pointing a firearm, and carrying a handgun without a license.
The State introduced cell phone tower/voter evidence with testimony from a Verizon engineer to place Blaize’s location during the shooting.
The trial included extensive cross-examination about tower coverage, signals, and location limitations for determining Blaize’s whereabouts.
During jury admonitions, the judge made a comment referencing cell phone tower sector designations, which Blaize challenged on appeal.
The jury found Blaize guilty of all counts and sentenced him to life without parole for murder and an aggregate term for the remaining counts.
The Indiana Court affirmatively addressed whether the trial court’s remark constituted fundamental error and held Blaize’s convictions should be affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court’s cell-tower remark deprived Blaize of a fair trial.	Blaize argues the remark vouched for the tower evidence and unfairly undermined his alibi.	State contends the remark was ill-advised but not prejudicial enough to require reversal.	No reversible error; remark did not render the trial fundamentally unfair.
Whether the remark was preserved and, if not, whether the fundamental-error exception applies.	Blaize preserved or should have been allowed relief under fundamental error.	Waiver applies; error not fundamental.	Waiver; but no fundamental-error reversal warranted.

Garrett v. State, 737 N.E.2d 388 (Ind. 2000) (improper comments waiving review when no objection raised)
Cornett v. State, 450 N.E.2d 498 (Ind. 1983) (impartiality claims require trial-judge neutrality)
Smith v. State, 558 N.E.2d 841 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (failure to object can preclude review of claims about judge remarks)
Harris v. State, 963 N.E.2d 505 (Ind. 2012) (right to fair trial before impartial judge; trial court must avoid unnecessary comments)
Harrington v. State, 584 N.E.2d 558 (Ind. 1992) (due-process considerations in judge conduct during trial)
Everling v. State, 929 N.E.2d 1281 (Ind. 2010) (importance of judge’s impartiality in jury perception)
Halliburton v. State, 1 N.E.3d 670 (Ind. 2013) (extremely narrow fundamental-error exception for improper remarks)
Mathews v. State, 849 N.E.2d 578 (Ind. 2006) (fundamental-error standard in trial-court remarks)
Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. 2010) (explicit criteria for when remarks amount to reversible error)
Cook v. State, 734 N.E.2d 563 (Ind. 2000) (ill-advised remarks not automatically reversible)