Brandon Brummett v. State of Indiana, 10 N.E.3d 78

Brummett, 23, is cousin of KA (16) and AA (14); their father is Brummett’s uncle, incarcerated in WV.
The State charged Brummett with five counts: two child molesting felonies (B and C) and three counts of sexual misconduct with a minor (D).
Trial began March 4, 2013; KA testified Brummett touched her vagina on multiple occasions starting when she was nine or ten.
AA testified Brummett touched her when she was eight or nine and again in West Virginia; testimony indicated touching over clothing and on occasion inside clothing.
Jury convicted Brummett on all counts; sentences imposed concurrently (ten years with three suspended on Count I, four years on Count II, and 545 days on Counts III–IV).
On appeal, Brummett challenged prosecutorial misconduct, the credibility of KA’s testimony, and admission of evidence about an uncharged out-of-state incident.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutorial misconduct grave peril	Misconduct created grave peril; prejudiced defense.	Not preserved; cumulative misconduct unfairly prejudicial.	Cumulative prosecutorial misconduct constitutes fundamental error; reversal required.
Defense counsel disparagement in closing	Prosecutor demeaned defense counsel and implied defense strategy harmed fairness.	No improper effect; comments within scope of arguments.	Prosecutor’s comments disparaging defense counsel improper; contributed to fundamental error.
Vouching for state witnesses	Prosecutor vouched that KA and other witnesses were credible; harmed neutrality.	Arguments were responsive to defense theory and evidence.	Improper vouching; comments beyond permissible opinion based on evidence.
Inflammatory and argumentative cross-examination	Cross-examination questions were inflammatory and improper.	Questions framed as part of testing credibility.	Cross-examination was argumentative and inflammatory; contributed to misconduct.
Admission of uncharged out-of-state acts	Evidence of acts in West Virginia admitted to establish timeline.	Not fundamental error; limited, non-plea related purpose.	Admission not deemed fundamental error; remanded for new trial due to prosecutorial misconduct finding.

Lambert v. State, 743 N.E.2d 719 (Ind. 2001) (closing argument must be based on record; respect for opposing counsel)
Marcum v. State, 725 N.E.2d 852 (Ind. 2002) (prosecutor not to demean opposing counsel in closing)
Bardonner v. State, 587 N.E.2d 1353 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982) (good guy/bad guy tactic improper; unfair to jury)
Lainhart v. State, 916 N.E.2d 924 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (prosecutor may comment on credibility only from evidence; improper vouching central here)
Gaby v. State, 949 N.E.2d 870 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (prosecutor’s responses crossing into personal knowledge constitute vouching)