David Mathews v. State of Indiana
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 529
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Mathews drank heavily after working all day; officers located him after a disturbance on Piedmont Lane and found him intoxicated; he became belligerent, resisted, and was escorted to jail; a later mistrial motion was denied prior to habitual-offender phase; he was convicted of public intoxication (Class B misdemeanor) and intimidation (Class D felony) and found to be an habitual offender; the sentences were concurrent with enhancement totaling six-and-a-half years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying a mistrial | Mathews argues Rule 2.11(A)(6) required recusal. | State contends separate phases permit no per se forfeiture; no prejudice shown. | No abuse; mistrial denial affirmed. |
| Whether evidence supports public intoxication conviction | Insufficient evidence of intoxication or public place | Evidence showed intoxication and public locations crossed | Sufficient evidence to sustain conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Francis v. State, 758 N.E.2d 528 (Ind.2001) (discretion to grant mistrial; extreme remedy only when necessary)
- McManus v. State, 814 N.E.2d 253 (Ind.2004) (great deference to trial court on mistrial ruling)
- Booher v. State, 773 N.E.2d 814 (Ind.2002) (mistrial requires error with probable persuasive effect on jury)
- Denton v. State, 496 N.E.2d 576 (Ind.1986) (disqualification standards under Rule 2.11(A)(6))
- Gunter v. State, 605 N.E.2d 1209 (Ind.Ct.App.1993) (permissible to have different juries for habitual-offender phase)
- Mitchem v. State, 685 N.E.2d 671 (Ind.1997) (variance test balancing prejudice and double jeopardy concerns)
- Moore v. State, 634 N.E.2d 825 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) (public intoxication on public vs private location; cautions against broad inference from address)
- Vickers v. State, 653 N.E.2d 110 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (continuous conduct; multiple offenses; public roadway observed)
- Parahams v. State, 908 N.E.2d 689 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (variance not fatal where not prejudicial to defense)