Bruce Ryan v. State of Indiana, 2014 Ind. LEXIS 453

Bruce Ryan, a 43-year-old middle school science teacher, was charged with three counts of Class C felony Sexual Misconduct with a Minor based on a sexual/romantic relationship with a 15‑year‑old former student (FS) that included online messages and physical contact.
Trial resulted in convictions on two counts and acquittal on one count (charges differed only by date).
On appeal Ryan argued the prosecutor committed multiple instances of prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument and rebuttal; he did not contemporaneously object at trial.
The Court of Appeals reversed; the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to reconsider whether the unobjected‑to remarks constituted fundamental error.
The Supreme Court identified one improper remark (urging jurors to “send the message” to stop similar conduct) but concluded the comment did not rise to fundamental error given jury instructions, other proper argument, and the evidence.
Judgment of the trial court was affirmed; the defendant’s failure to object procedurally defaulted most claims and fundamental‑error relief was denied.

Issue	State's Argument	Ryan's Argument	Held
Whether prosecutor penalized constitutional rights by implying jury trial was to let defendant "get away with it"	Statement invited inference of guilt from the evidence, not a penalty on rights	Statement impermissibly penalized defendant's right to jury trial/self‑incrimination	No misconduct: remark not reasonably read as penalizing exercise of rights
Whether prosecutor demeaned defense counsel as using "tricks" to let guilty persons walk	Comments responded to defense argument and addressed effect/style of counsel's argument	Comments improperly attacked counsel and demeaned the defense	Not reversible: comments improper in tone but did not place defendant in grave peril
Whether prosecutor impermissibly vouched for victim's truthfulness	Credibility comments were supported by evidence (consistency, lack of motive to lie given online logs)	Prosecutor vouched for witness in violation of rules; case was essentially "he said, she said"	No misconduct: credibility argument tied to evidence and allowed
Whether prosecutor urged jury to convict to "send a message" beyond defendant's guilt	Argued as permissible remark about public interest and community protection	Impermissibly asked jury to convict for broader societal reasons, not solely guilt	Misconduct: improper to urge conviction for reasons other than guilt, but not fundamental error given the record

Cooper v. State, 854 N.E.2d 831 (Ind. 2006) (framework for evaluating prosecutorial misconduct and grave peril inquiry)
Castillo v. State, 974 N.E.2d 458 (Ind. 2012) (example of prosecutorial misconduct rising to fundamental error at sentencing)
Marcum v. State, 725 N.E.2d 852 (Ind. 2000) (comments demeaning opposing counsel may be improper but not always prejudicial)
Brock v. State, 423 N.E.2d 302 (Ind. 1981) (prosecutor's personal attacks on defense counsel can be improper yet not warrant reversal)
Schlomer v. State, 580 N.E.2d 950 (Ind. 1991) (prosecutor may not personally vouch for witness credibility)
Maldonado v. State, 355 N.E.2d 843 (Ind. 1976) (preservation rule requiring contemporaneous objection to preserve prosecutorial misconduct claims)
Booher v. State, 773 N.E.2d 814 (Ind. 2002) (procedural default requires showing fundamental error)
Smith v. State, 283 N.E.2d 365 (Ind. 1972) (prosecutor may reference public expectation that jury remove dangerous individuals)