Edward John Meiggs v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
82A01-1706-CR-1261
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- On May 6, 2015, A.W. attended a massage at Evansville Metaphysics; Meiggs was the masseur and performed the massage.
- During an extension of the session, Meiggs digitally penetrated A.W. and used his tongue on her genitals; A.W. said “no,” tightened her legs, and ultimately did not physically resist further due to fear.
- A sexual-assault exam collected internal and external genital swabs and clothing; external swab contained male DNA and amylase (a saliva enzyme); testing showed Meiggs could not be excluded as a contributor to the external swab, but Meiggs’s DNA was not found on internal swabs or clothing (other unknown male DNA was on clothing).
- The State charged Meiggs with three counts of Level 3 felony rape; jury convicted on one count and acquitted on two.
- At trial the court excluded the lab certificate and barred cross-examination about the unknown male DNA on A.W.’s clothing as irrelevant; the court allowed testimony that Meiggs’s DNA was not on certain items.
- Jury asked whether saliva on the vagina indicates tongue penetration; the court supplied a definition of “penetration” (slightest penetration sufficient) instead of rereading all instructions. Meiggs was sentenced to nine years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of evidence about unknown male DNA on clothing | State: evidence of unknown DNA was irrelevant to whether Meiggs’s DNA was or was not on key samples | Meiggs: exclusion prevented showing another person’s DNA on clothing and deprived cross-examination about alternative contributors | Court: exclusion proper—unknown DNA on clothing was irrelevant because jury already heard Meiggs’s DNA was not on those items |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing (statements about amylase/saliva and DNA) | State: prosecutor’s comments were reasonable inferences from testimony that amylase was detected and that Meiggs could not be excluded as a contributor to external swab | Meiggs: prosecutor misstated or overstated the evidence by implying Meiggs’s saliva was on A.W.’s external genitalia | Court: no misconduct—record supports amylase detection and that Meiggs could not be excluded; prosecutor permissibly argued conclusions from evidence |
| Jury instruction procedure (providing penetration definition rather than rereading all instructions) | State: supplying omitted, necessary legal definition was appropriate under exception to rereading-all rule | Meiggs: court should have reread all instructions because answering piecemeal could emphasize a point | Court: no error—Martin/Jenkins exception allows supplying omitted necessary instruction rather than rereading all instructions |
| Sentencing statement (court identified aggravators/mitigators) | State: court adequately stated mitigating (lack of record, military service) and aggravating (nature/circumstances) reasons | Meiggs: court found aggravators/mitigators but failed to identify them specifically in writing | Court: no error—trial judge expressly identified mitigators and the offense nature as an aggravator at sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. State, 6 N.E.3d 491 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (standard of review for admission/exclusion of evidence)
- Lambert v. State, 743 N.E.2d 719 (Ind. 2001) (limits on prosecutorial closing argument and permissible inferences)
- Riley v. State, 717 N.E.2d 489 (Ind. 1999) (general practice to reread all instructions when jury asks about law)
- Martin v. State, 760 N.E.2d 597 (Ind. 2002) (exception allowing a trial court to supply an omitted necessary instruction rather than rereading all instructions)
- Jenkins v. State, 424 N.E.2d 1002 (Ind. 1981) (permitting responses other than rereading when instruction gap exists)
- State v. Taylor, 49 N.E.3d 1019 (Ind. 2016) (two-step analysis for prosecutorial misconduct review)
- Beattie v. State, 924 N.E.2d 643 (Ind. 2010) (inconsistent- verdict claims not reviewable on appeal)