Brent Cole v. State of Indiana
28 N.E.3d 1126
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- In May 2013 Brent Cole (defendant) went to Joseph Phillips’s house, smelled of alcohol, confronted Phillips about renovation progress, became angry, and pinned Phillips against kitchen cabinets. Phillips pushed Cole away; Cole then grabbed Phillips by the neck, punched and slapped him, and told him to say “uncle.” Phillips sustained neck bruising, a busted lip, and a black eye.
- Deputy Feiner photographed Phillips’s injuries, interviewed Cole, and took a written statement in which Cole admitted pinning Phillips and telling him not to touch him or his family again; Cole also told the deputy he did not feel threatened.
- The State filed and the court granted a motion in limine excluding evidence of prior alleged bad acts by Phillips (e.g., prior touching of family members). Cole’s counsel agreed to the motion in limine before trial.
- Cole did not request a preliminary self-defense instruction but pursued a self-defense theory during opening and through testimony; references to Cole’s statement about keeping hands off his family prompted a juror question about who had been touched previously.
- The court, outside the jury, concluded that references to prior acts implicated the motion in limine and issued a written in-trial admonition (explaining limits of self-defense and that past alleged touchings would not justify Cole’s use of force); Cole affirmatively stated he had no objection. The jury was later given a final self-defense instruction, convicted Cole of strangulation (reduced to Class A misdemeanor) and battery, and the convictions were affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Cole) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by admonishing/instructing the jury mid-trial and whether that violated Cole’s rights | Admonition was proper exercise of discretion under Rule 105 to limit prejudicial inquiry; no reversible error | Admonition given mid-trial misstates law, prevented presentation of prior-act evidence relevant to self-defense, and violated due process/right to present a defense; alternatively, any error was fundamental | Waived: Cole affirmatively consented to motion in limine and stated no objection to the admonition; any error invited and thus not reviewable; no fundamental-error relief granted |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to rebut Cole’s self-defense claim | Evidence showed Cole was initial aggressor, re-engaged after being told to leave, and told police he did not feel threatened; State rebutted self-defense | Cole said Phillips pushed him, hovered with fists and had a knife nearby, and he acted to defend himself | Held: Sufficient evidence supported verdict; jury reasonably found Cole not justified in using force |
Key Cases Cited
- Dooley v. State, 393 N.E.2d 154 (Ind. 1979) (admonitions/instructions must come from an impartial judge)
- Small v. State, 736 N.E.2d 742 (Ind. 2000) (trial court has discretion but no duty to give limiting instruction sua sponte)
- Humphrey v. State, 680 N.E.2d 836 (Ind. 1997) (Rule 105 does not impose an affirmative duty to give limiting instructions)
- Halliburton v. State, 1 N.E.3d 670 (Ind. 2013) (a party who concedes or affirmatively states no objection waives appellate challenge to evidence admission)
- Kingery v. State, 659 N.E.2d 490 (Ind. 1995) (invited error is not reversible)
- Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799 (Ind. 2002) (standard for sufficiency review when self-defense asserted)
- Coleman v. State, 946 N.E.2d 1160 (Ind. 2011) (elements of a valid self-defense claim)
- Miller v. State, 720 N.E.2d 696 (Ind. 1999) (State may rebut self-defense by affirmatively showing defendant did not act in self-defense or relying on sufficiency of its evidence)
- Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. 2010) (defendant who affirmatively states no objection waives review)