Nelson Julian Santiago v. State of Indiana, 985 N.E.2d 760

Santiago appeals a conviction for neglect of a dependent, a Class A felony, challenging the trial court's denial of his proposed jury instruction on presumption of innocence.
On July 28, 2012, Santiago found his four-month-old daughter Juliana unresponsive; she later died after hospitalization with subdural hematoma.
The State alleged abuse or neglect; defense offered alternative explanations for the hematoma, including a coagulation disorder or a prior car accident.
Before deliberations, Santiago requested the presumption-of-innocence instruction; the trial court refused.
A mixed verdict followed: not guilty of murder, guilty of neglect of a dependent, with other counts unresolved; he was sentenced to 40 years.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused discretion in denying the proposed presumption instruction	Santiago argues the instruction is required under Robey	State contends the pattern instructions adequately conveyed the presumption and burden	No abuse; instructions as a whole correctly conveyed presumption and burden

Robey v. State, 454 N.E.2d 1221 (Ind. 1983) (presumption of innocence instruction required when requested)
Simpson v. State, 915 N.E.2d 511 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (Robey principle applied to require proper instruction as a whole)
Lee v. State, 964 N.E.2d 859 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (more detailed instructions may affect presumption versus reasonable-doubt principles)
Buckner v. State, 857 N.E.2d 1011 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (prefer pattern jury instructions)
Hudgins v. State, 451 N.E.2d 1087 (Ind. 1983) (closing arguments do not cure misstatements when instruction is defective)
St. Mary’s Med. Ctr. of Evansville, Inc. v. Loomis, 783 N.E.2d 274 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (decision to give or deny jury instructions largely within trial court's discretion)