Baker v. State
2011 Ind. LEXIS 518
| Ind. | 2011Background
- Baker was charged in 2006 with two counts of child molesting; victims were C.B. and J.A.; an additional count against A.H. was later added after amendments extending the time period to 2000–2003 and adding a habitual offender count; a mistrial occurred in 2007 and retrial began in 2008 after amendments were permitted over objections; trial evidence included detailed testimony from C.B., J.A., and A.H. describing multiple acts across various locations and years; Baker testified denying involvement and claiming the victims lied; after a five-day trial he was convicted on three counts of child molesting and pled guilty to habitual offender; total sentence was 106 years; on appeal Baker argued lack of jury unanimity, improper amendment and other issues; the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted transfer to review unanimity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury unanimity was required for each count | Baker argues no basis for unanimity per count due to multiple acts | State did not elect a specific act; unanimity required | State may elect act; if not, unanimity or all acts must be described to convict |
| Whether the trial court erred in not giving a unanimity instruction | Instruction failed to clarify unanimity requirement | No objection; waiver; not fundamental error | Waived; absence of explicit instruction not reversible error given credibility battle |
| Whether the amendment of the charging information violated ex post facto or was improperly applied | Amendment broadened the time period and added counts | Amendment permitted and properly applied; no ex post facto issue | Amendment permissible; not unconstitutional as applied |
| Whether the verdicts were fundamentally unfair due to instructional ambiguity | Ambiguity could deprive Baker of fair trial | Credibility dispute resolved by jury; not prejudicial beyond fair trial | No fundamental error; no denial of fair trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Fisher v. State, 259 Ind. 633, 291 N.E.2d 76 (Ind. 1973) (juror unanimity required for guilt; theory of culpability may vary)
- Taylor v. State, 840 N.E.2d 324 (Ind.2006) (unanimity required for guilt, not necessarily for theory)
- Lainhart v. State, 916 N.E.2d 924 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (discusses disjunctive instructions and unanimity concerns)
- Castillo v. State, 734 N.E.2d 299 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (multiple acts within one count; unanimity considerations)
- Jones, People v. Jones, 51 Cal.3d 294, 270 Cal. Rptr. 611, 792 P.2d 643 (Cal. 1990) (unanimity instruction when no election occurs and acts are generic)
- Petrich, State v. Petrich (—) (Washington approach allowing election or unanimity instruction)
- Muhm, State v. Muhm, 775 N.W.2d 508 (S.D.2009) (adopts Jones-like unanimity framework)
- Thomas v. People, 803 P.2d 144 (Colo.1990) (adopts unanimity framework for multiple acts within one offense)