Leon H. Tyson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
20A03-1704-CR-789
| Ind. Ct. App. | Nov 29, 2017Background
- In June 2015 Leon Tyson lived with his girlfriend Danielle Buford. On June 20, 2015 Buford’s uncle Tommie Strowder was shot outside the apartment and later died.
- Witnesses saw two Black men flee the scene in a blue car. Shell casings and two .45 bullets were recovered; ballistics matched a recovered .45 Springfield handgun. A latent fingerprint on the gun magazine matched Tyson.
- Buford initially concealed shell casings and did not immediately report the shooting; she later identified events and implicated Tyson. Tyson fled to Chicago briefly and returned.
- Tyson was charged with murder and criminal confinement; a jury convicted him of murder (acquitted of confinement). He was sentenced to 63 years with 5 years suspended.
- On appeal Tyson challenged (1) admission of evidence about events the night before the shooting, (2) admissibility/authentication of the fingerprint analyst’s report, and (3) multiple instances of alleged prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Tyson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of evidence about June 19 events | Evidence was relevant background and minor to the State’s case | Evidence was irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, or admissible only under 404(b) limits | Admission (even if erroneous) was harmless because independent forensic and eyewitness evidence strongly supported conviction |
| Admissibility of fingerprint analyst’s report without admitting exemplar card | Report was properly authenticated by the analyst and experts may rely on unadmitted bases | Report was improper because the exemplar fingerprint card used for comparison was not authenticated | Report admissible; expert may base opinion on unadmitted materials reasonably relied upon in the field; cross-examination remedies concerns |
| Prosecutor alluding to uncalled witnesses / unadmitted evidence | Comments explained choice to streamline witness list and responded to defense suggestion police didn’t interview certain people | Prosecutor implied knowledge of additional undisclosed evidence, suggesting unfair influence | Statements were permissible responses to defense argument and did not produce fundamental error given strong independent evidence |
| Prosecutorial vouching, attacking defense witnesses, and appeals to passion | Prosecutor’s credibility comments were grounded in witness demeanor and evidence and rebutted defense attacks | Statements vouched for witnesses, improperly attacked defense witnesses, and appealed to juror emotions/prejudice | Remarks were proper responses to defense themes or based on record; even if isolated statements were improper, they did not rise to fundamental error or make a fair trial impossible |
Key Cases Cited
- Meadows v. State, 785 N.E.2d 1112 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (improperly admitted evidence is harmless when independent evidence of guilt is substantial)
- Bennett v. Richmond, 960 N.E.2d 782 (Ind. 2012) (cross-examination and contrary evidence cure concerns about experts’ reliance on out-of-court materials)
- Ryan v. State, 9 N.E.3d 663 (Ind. 2014) (standard for prosecutorial misconduct and fundamental-error review)
- Lopez v. State, 527 N.E.2d 1119 (Ind. 1988) (prosecutor must not imply undisclosed special knowledge or evidence)
- Brown v. State, 746 N.E.2d 63 (Ind. 2001) (prosecutor may respond to inferences raised by the defense)
- Dumas v. State, 803 N.E.2d 1113 (Ind. 2004) (when defense accuses a witness of lying, prosecutor may argue the witness is credible based on the record)