158 N.E.3d 795
Ind. Ct. App.2020Background
- In October 2017, then-14-year-old R. was raped in the backseat of a car by Hayden J. Nix while two other teens (B. and E.) were present; R. resisted and later disclosed the assault to friends and family.
- R.’s grandmother reported the assault to law enforcement about six months after R. first disclosed; the State charged Nix with Level 3 felony rape in January 2019.
- Nix moved for a change of venue in October 2019, citing local media coverage of his other cases; the trial court denied the motion.
- During voir dire six prospective jurors admitted reading media reports about Nix; the court allowed them to rejoin other prospective jurors without admonition, but none of those six were seated on the jury; defense did not object to the court’s procedure.
- At trial the State elicited testimony from B., R.’s grandmother, another friend, and a detective about R.’s out-of-court statements; Nix did not object at trial.
- Nix was convicted; at sentencing the court denied public funds for a mitigation specialist (defense later retained one privately); on appeal Nix argued (1) denial of an impartial jury/change of venue, (2) "drumbeat" repetition of the victim’s statements/fundamental error, and (3) abuse of discretion in denying funds for a mitigation specialist.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of impartial-jury claim and change of venue | Defendant failed to preserve error; any juror exposure stemmed from defendant’s voir dire; no evidence of actual juror bias; denial of venue appropriate | Pretrial publicity and the court’s voir dire procedure deprived Nix of an impartial jury and warranted a change of venue | Claims unpreserved and/or invited error; speculative post-hoc assertions insufficient; denial of change of venue not an abuse of discretion |
| Admission of multiple witnesses recounting victim’s statements ("drumbeat") | No fundamental error; defense made tactical decision not to object; trial court not required to sua sponte intervene | Repetition of R.’s out-of-court statements vouched for her credibility and denied due process; trial court should have stopped it sua sponte | Not fundamental error; failure to object forecloses review; appellate court rejects claim as not meeting the high bar for sua sponte relief |
| Denial of funds for mitigation specialist at sentencing | Trial court properly exercised discretion given evidence defendant had access to funds (private counsel hired by family) | Nix remained indigent and entitled to public funds to hire a mitigation specialist | No abuse of discretion; appellate court will not reweigh the facts supporting the trial court’s decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Deen-Bacchus v. Bacchus, 71 N.E.3d 882 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (court treats counsel statements as not evidentiary proof of juror bias)
- B.C. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs. (In re J.C.), 142 N.E.3d 427 (Ind. 2020) (invited error doctrine bars reversal for errors the party induced)
- Whiting v. State, 969 N.E.2d 24 (Ind. 2012) (procedural default can forfeit appellate review of claims)
- Durden v. State, 99 N.E.3d 645 (Ind. 2018) (defines structural and fundamental error and limits reviewability)
- Batchelor v. State, 119 N.E.3d 550 (Ind. 2019) (invited error forecloses appellate review, even of structural claims)
- Merritt v. State, 99 N.E.3d 706 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (fundamental error in evidentiary rulings is rare; trial courts need not sua sponte correct tactical choices)
- Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. 2010) (examples of fundamental error include fabrication or willful malfeasance that make evidence deceptive)
- Myers v. State, 887 N.E.2d 170 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (standard for reviewing denial of change of venue is abuse of discretion)