Nathaniel Wilson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 49A04-1609-CR-1984

Background

Nathaniel Wilson lived with Kathleen Robinson and her daughter C.R. from August 2014 until January 17, 2015; C.R. later disclosed sexual contact and Wilson was charged with six counts of Level 1 child molesting and one count of Level 1 attempted child molesting.
Trial occurred May 23–24, 2015; jury convicted Wilson and the court imposed an aggregate 40-year executed sentence.
During voir dire the original panel was supplemented twice with prospective jurors who had been excused from other courts earlier that day. The court re-administered Jury Rule 13’s oath to the second supplemental group but not to the first supplemental group (the “challenged jurors”).
Defense counsel objected at trial to adding jurors who had been excused from other courts and who had not heard the entire voir dire, but did not object on the record that the court failed to re-administer the Jury Rule 13 oath to the first supplemental group.
On appeal Wilson argued the failure to administer the oath denied him an impartial jury and, because his counsel did not raise that precise ground below, he alternatively asserted the error was fundamental.
The Court of Appeals found the trial court erred in not re-administering the oath to the first supplemental group but held Wilson failed to show fundamental error or exhaustion of peremptory challenges, so the conviction was affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether voir dire error (failure to re-administer Jury Rule 13 oath to some supplemental jurors) deprived defendant of an impartial jury	State: no deprivation; voir dire otherwise proper and defendant had opportunity to question jurors	Wilson: lack of oath undermined candor of ~1/4 of jurors and impaired counsel’s ability to detect bias, denying impartial jury	Court: trial court erred in not re-administering oath but error was not shown to be fundamental and defendant failed to exhaust peremptory challenges or identify an objectionable juror; conviction affirmed
Whether failure to object to the specific ground below (oath) bars appellate review absent fundamental error	State: waiver applies because counsel objected on other grounds only	Wilson: fundamental-error exception applies because constitutional right was affected	Court: waiver rules apply; defendant must show extremely prejudicial fundamental error, which he did not
Whether defendant satisfied the exhaustion rule by using peremptories or showing he ran out of peremptories	State: defendant did not show exhaustion or that an incompetent/objectionable juror served	Wilson: asserted conclusorily he was forced to accept biased jurors	Court: defendant failed to show exhaustion or identify objectionable juror; procedural default/resulting waiver upheld
Whether the error pervaded the proceedings so as to deny fair trial	State: no reasonable showing of prejudice	Wilson: claimed irreparable damage to voir dire effectiveness and juror candor	Court: conclusory claims insufficient; record showed counsel questioned challenged jurors and no demonstrable prejudice; no fundamental error

Key Cases Cited

White v. State, 772 N.E.2d 408 (Ind. 2002) (a party may not object on one ground at trial and raise a different ground on appeal)
State v. Eubanks, 729 N.E.2d 201 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (failure to object at trial requires showing fundamental error on appeal)
Moore v. State, 673 N.E.2d 776 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (discussing waiver and review standards)
Lacey v. State, 670 N.E.2d 1299 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (definition and standard for fundamental error)
Baird v. State, 688 N.E.2d 911 (Ind. 1997) (fundamental error described as blatant due-process violation)
Ramirez v. State, 7 N.E.3d 933 (Ind. 2014) (Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury)
Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985) (juror removal for cause standard under the Constitution)
Whiting v. State, 969 N.E.2d 24 (Ind. 2012) (exhaustion rule and peremptory challenge principles)
Oswalt v. State, 19 N.E.3d 241 (Ind. 2014) (explaining exhaustion rule and consequences of failing to peremptorily remove jurors)
Merritt v. State, 488 N.E.2d 340 (Ind. 1986) (peremptory challenges often based on impressions or hunches)
Price v. State, 725 N.E.2d 82 (Ind. 2000) (parties generally need not explain peremptory challenges)
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (peremptory strikes cannot be used discriminatorily)
J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994) (gender-based peremptory strike prohibition)
Weisheit v. State, 26 N.E.3d 3 (Ind. 2015) (conclusory assertion of being forced to accept biased jurors is insufficient to show reversible error)
Canaan v. State, 683 N.E.2d 227 (Ind. 1997) (extremely narrow application of fundamental-error exception)