Brandon Robey v. State of Indiana
2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 183
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Robey sexually abused his six- or seven-year-old daughter A.P. in 2010; acts included fondling, fellatio, and penetrative conduct with ejaculation.
- Robey was charged with four counts of Class A felony child molesting, two counts of Class C felony child molesting, and Class A misdemeanor marijuana possession; he pled guilty to the marijuana charge.
- During jury selection, juror Brannan disclosed past acquaintance with Robey; Robey moved to strike for potential taint, but the court denied and Brannan served as a juror.
- Robey moved to correct error after verdict, claiming juror misconduct based on Facebook communications; affidavits from Brannan and Gillespie accompanied the motion.
- A post-trial hearing concluded Brannan’s comment was made after verdict, the court denied relief, and Robey was sentenced to an aggregate 110 years (80 years plus 30 for habitual offender).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror misconduct denial on appeal | Robey argues Brannan’s knowledge tainted the venire and required a new trial. | Robey contends the trial court abused its discretion by not striking tainted juror information. | No abuse of discretion; evidence showed extraneous information was introduced after verdict. |
| Alleged vouching testimony admission | Robey claims several witnesses’ statements amounted to improper vouching for the child. | Robey asserts the trial court allowed impermissible vouching and error occurred. | Waived for lack of contemporaneous objection; no fundamental error established. |
| Prosecutor’s closing statements about expert witness | Robey challenges prosecutor’s statements as improper vouching for Dr. Hibbard. | Robey contends prosecutor improperly vouched for the witness’s credibility. | Not error; prosecutor’s remarks tied to the witness’s expertise and evidence, not credibility. |
| Habitual offender adjudication on direct appeal | Robey claims the habitual offender predicate convictions lack sufficient factual basis. | Robey asserts direct appeal is appropriate to challenge the HB adjudication. | Cannot challenge HB adjudication on direct appeal after admitting to HB status; must pursue PCR. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lopez v. State, 527 N.E.2d 1119 (Ind. 1988) (extraneous information allowed to be challenged but requires proper standard)
- Griffin v. State, 754 N.E.2d 899 (Ind. 2001) (abuse of discretion standard for juror misconduct analysis)
- Hoglund v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1230 (Ind. 2012) (vouching and expert testimony issues clarified)
- Kindred v. State, 973 N.E.2d 1245 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (allowance of general testimony on signs of coaching in child victims)
- Purifoy v. State, 821 N.E.2d 409 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (contemporaneous objection rule and preservation of error)
- Tumulty v. State, 666 N.E.2d 394 (Ind. 1996) (cannot challenge habitual offender adjudication on direct appeal after admission)
- Stanley v. State, 849 N.E.2d 626 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (post-conviction relief path for HB challenges after guilty admission)
- Kling v. State, 837 N.E.2d 502 (Ind. 2005) (direct appeal limitations following guilty pleas)