Jason Deaton v. State of Indiana
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 590
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- E.D. revealed to her sister that Deaton forced her to perform oral sex for about one year.
- Deaton was charged with two counts of Class A felony child molesting under IND. Code § 35-42-4-3(a)(1).
- Trial commenced November 27, 2012; E.D. testified about multiple offensive incidents and identifiable marks.
- Jury found Deaton guilty on both counts; he was sentenced to 30 years (28 executed, 2 on supervised probation).
- Appellant challenges prosecutorial misconduct and sufficiency of the evidence; appellate review follows fundamental-error/sufficiency framework.
- Court addressed alleged misconduct during voir dire and closing, and assessed sufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct during voir dire/closing | Deaton argues misconduct deprived fair trial | State contends no fundamental error; error cured | No fundamental error; fair trial not impossible |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for two counts | E.D. credibility was lacking | Uncorroborated testimony can sustain conviction | Evidence sufficient; conviction supported |
Key Cases Cited
- Ritchie v. State, 809 N.E.2d 258 (Ind. 2004) (prosecutorial misconduct standard; probable persuasive effect)
- Booher v. State, 773 N.E.2d 814 (Ind. 2002) (fundamental error exception to waived misconduct)
- Emerson v. State, 952 N.E.2d 832 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (misconduct cured by proper jury instructions)
- Gaby v. State, 949 N.E.2d 870 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (improper vouching for witness credibility during closing)
- Hoglund v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1230 (Ind. 2012) (uncontroverted victim testimony can support conviction)
- Bowles v. State, 737 N.E.2d 1150 (Ind. 2000) (un corroborated testimony adequate for conviction in certain cases)
- Brooks v. State, 560 N.E.2d 49 (Ind. 1990) (un corroborated testimony sufficiency principle)
- Dobbins v. State, 721 N.E.2d 867 (Ind. 1999) (burden of proof and standard of review in misconduct)
- Poling v. State, 938 N.E.2d 1212 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (closing arguments and burden of proof considerations)
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (standard for sufficiency and weighing evidence)