Bryson Terrell Rolling v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 48A04-1612-CR-2848

On Feb. 25, 2016, Bryson Rolling (6'4", ~300 lbs) entered a cell assigned to Christopher Barrett and David Scarberry without permission; Rolling struck Barrett, who suffered a broken jaw requiring surgical fixation.
Rolling was charged (information amended) with aggravated battery, a Level 3 felony; the State initially charged a Level 5 felony (battery resulting in serious bodily injury) but amended to aggravated battery.
Rolling testified and claimed self-defense; the jury convicted him of aggravated battery and the trial court sentenced him.
On appeal Rolling raised two issues: (1) prosecutorial misconduct during voir dire and closing argument, and (2) the trial court’s refusal to give a jury instruction on the lesser included offense (battery resulting in serious bodily injury).
The Court of Appeals reviewed alleged misconduct for waiver and, if waived, only for fundamental error; Rolling had objected selectively during voir dire but did not object during closing and did not tender a proposed written lesser-included instruction.
The court affirmed the conviction: it found no prosecutorial misconduct amounting to reversible error or fundamental error, and found Rolling waived the jury-instruction claim by failing to tender a written instruction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Rolling)	Held
Prosecutorial misconduct (voir dire & closing)	Prosecutor’s voir dire questions and closing were proper efforts to probe juror biases and argue evidence; any isolated statements harmless.	Voir dire improperly indoctrinated and educated jurors on substantive law (definition of "protracted") and closing comments were inflammatory; these prejudiced Rolling.	No reversible error: some voir dire lecturing poor practice but not misconduct causing grave peril; closing remarks (characterizing defense as "throwing crap at the wall") improper but not fundamentally erroneous.
Failure to give lesser-included offense instruction	Omitted instruction not preserved because defendant failed to tender a written proposed instruction; waiver applies.	Trial discussion showed parties addressed the issue and State didn’t object; omission should be reviewable.	Waiver: Rolling failed to tender a proposed written instruction, so the claim is waived and not reviewed on appeal.

Cooper v. State, 854 N.E.2d 831 (Ind. 2006) (framework for assessing prosecutorial misconduct and "grave peril" standard)
Ryan v. State, 9 N.E.3d 663 (Ind. 2014) (fundamental error is extremely narrow; used to correct most egregious trial errors)
Malloch v. State, 980 N.E.2d 887 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (voir dire may probe attitudes about charged offense; questions should not indoctrinate)
Deaton v. State, 999 N.E.2d 452 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (waiver principles for unobjected prosecutorial misconduct; review limited to fundamental error)
White v. State, 687 N.E.2d 178 (Ind. 1997) (failure to tender a proposed written instruction on omitted law waives appellate review)
McDowell v. State, 885 N.E.2d 1260 (Ind. 2008) (distinction: objection to given instruction preserves error without tendering an alternative; omission requires proposed instruction)