PALILONIS v. State
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 292
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- Palilonis was convicted of Class B felony rape for raping B.S., a Vincennes University student, after a night of heavy drinking.
- A year after the incident, B.S. committed suicide.
- At trial, the State admitted Palilonis's statements to police, B.S.'s statements to the nurse during a sexual-assault examination, and evidence of B.S.'s death over Palilonis's objections.
- A nurse testified that B.S. was credible, without Palilonis's objection.
- Four days after the verdict, a juror alleged misconduct; evidentiary hearings found no prejudice; the trial court denied the motion to set aside the verdict and Palilonis appealed.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, addressing juror misconduct, admissibility of death evidence, hearsay statements, vouching by the nurse, Palilonis's statements, and sufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror misconduct ruling | Palilonis argues there was juror misconduct. | State contends no substantial prejudice; proper rebuttal at hearings. | No abuse of discretion; no substantial prejudice shown. |
| Admission of B.S.'S death to jury | Moore controls; prejudice from informing jury of death. | Facts are distinguishable; informing death was fairest resolution. | Not an abuse of discretion; informing death was appropriate under the circumstances. |
| Admission of B.S.'S statements to nurse (hearsay) and confrontation | Statements were inadmissible hearsay and violatedConfrontation Clause. | Statements fall under Rule 803(4) as medical treatment; confrontation satisfied. | 803(4) applies; Sixth Amendment not violated; statements admissible. |
| Vouching testimony by nurse | Nurse's testimony improperly vouched for credibility. | Harmless error; other corroboration existed. | Harmful but harmless error; not fundamental error. |
| Palilonis's statements to police (voluntariness, intoxication, deception) | Statements were voluntary; waiver valid despite intoxication/beating. | Intoxication/deception could have undermined voluntariness. | Statements admissible; totality of circumstances support voluntariness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. State, 440 N.E.2d 1092 (Ind. 1982) (limitation on death certificate disclosure under Moore's facts)
- Kelley v. State, 566 N.E.2d 591 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (vouching testimony not fundamental error in child-molesting context)
- Gutierrez v. State, 961 N.E.2d 1030 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (fundamental error for improper vouching where child testified)
- Hoglund v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1230 (Ind. 2012) (eliminates vouching exception in adult context)
- Ward v. State, 408 N.E.2d 140 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980) (deceptive police tactics; totality-of-circumstances consideration)
- Henry v. State, 738 N.E.2d 663 (Ind. 2000) (totality-of-circumstances in deceptive tactics cases)
- Perry v. State, 956 N.E.2d 41 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (nontestimonial nature of victim's statements to nurse under 803(4))