Jeffrey Fairbanks v. State of Indiana
108 N.E.3d 357
Ind. Ct. App.2018Background
- Jeffrey Fairbanks’ three‑month‑old daughter Janna was found dead after Fairbanks admitted to police he disposed of her body in a dumpster; the body was never recovered.
- Fairbanks was charged with murder and Level 1 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in death; jury acquitted on murder, convicted on neglect and sentenced to 30 years.
- At trial the State sought to admit prior‑bad‑act evidence (A.G. and E.M. testimony) that Fairbanks had put a pillow over Janna’s face on multiple prior occasions to prove lack of accident under Evidence Rule 404(b).
- Defense reserved a continuing objection to the pillow evidence pre‑trial but did not contemporaneously object when A.G. and E.M. testified; no limiting instruction was given.
- Additional appellate issues: alleged prosecutorial misconduct (different theories), juror misconduct (juror heard/played phone material in hallway), and a vagueness challenge to the neglect statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior‑pillow incidents under Evid. R. 404(b) (lack of accident) | State: lack‑of‑accident evidence admissible to rebut Fairbanks’ implication of accident and to show absence of mistake | Fairbanks: he never affirmatively claimed the death was an accident, so 404(b) lack‑of‑accident inapplicable; evidence unfairly prejudicial | Court: defendants must affirmatively claim accident before State may use 404(b) lack‑of‑accident; Fairbanks did so (statements/interviews/closing), and probative value outweighed prejudice → admission proper; even if error, harmless given independent evidence |
| Prosecutorial misconduct — multiple theories for neglect charge | State: closing argument aligned with charging information; can present alternate theories to prove an element | Fairbanks: opening focused on failure to seek help/unsupervised theory; closing advanced pillow‑smothering theory — unfair surprise | Court: No fundamental error; charging info encompassed placing/ leaving in unsafe/unsupervised environment; jury instructed accordingly; alternate theories permissible |
| Juror misconduct (juror used phone in hallway) | Defense: video/audio observed by defense intern suggested juror played material about police investigations/credibility — possible external influence | State: trial court was offered opportunity to question juror; defense declined; defendant did not move for mistrial | Court: Ramirez procedure applies only when defendant seeks mistrial; Fairbanks did not request mistrial and declined court’s offer to question juror → invited error; no relief granted |
| Vagueness challenge to neglect statute (I.C. §35‑46‑1‑4(a)(1)) | Fairbanks: statute criminalizes normal behavior (e.g., sleeping), fails to give notice where line is drawn | State: statute targets placing dependent in situation that endangers life/health; prosecution argued unsafe act (pillow + sleeping), not mere presence | Court: statute not void for vagueness; applied to facts distinguishing safe vs unsafe sleeping scenarios; challenge rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Hicks v. State, 690 N.E.2d 215 (Ind. 1997) (404(b) and 403 balancing and abuse‑of‑discretion review)
- Wickizer v. State, 626 N.E.2d 795 (Ind. 1993) (narrow construction of intent purpose for 404(b))
- Scalissi v. State, 759 N.E.2d 618 (Ind. 2001) (admitting other‑acts evidence under lack‑of‑accident to rebut claim of accident)
- Clemens v. State, 610 N.E.2d 236 (Ind. 1993) (absence‑of‑mistake evidence admissible to rebut accidental‑injury claim)
- Iqbal v. State, 805 N.E.2d 401 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (other‑acts evidence admissible under lack‑of‑accident where defendant asserted accidental explanation)
- Ramirez v. State, 7 N.E.3d 933 (Ind. 2014) (procedure and burden for juror‑taint claims; presumption of prejudice framework)
- Hayworth v. State, 904 N.E.2d 684 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (requirements and limits for preserving continuing objections)