Patrick Nichols v. State of Indiana
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 438
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- 3:19 a.m. burglary at Wilson General Store; air conditioning unit removed, alarm system ripped, cigarette cabinet pried open, cigarettes removed.
- Phone records show 6:00–7:00 a.m. calls from the store; one number matched Nichols’s mother’s cell phone, with whom Nichols lived.
- Around 6:45 a.m. ex-girlfriend Erica Lorenzo received a call from Nichols; he claimed to be at Elizabeth gas station and offered cigarettes/money for pickup.
- Stewart observed a purple PT Cruiser near the store; license plate matched closely to Helen Nichols’s plate, who owned a purple PT Cruiser.
- Wilson later saw the sliding doors in the alley pried open, the cigarette cabinet pried again with cigarettes missing; the State charged Nichols with burglary, theft, and criminal mischief; closing argument included improper Fifth Amendment commentary by the prosecutor; Nichols did not object.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutor’s Fifth Amendment comment was fundamental error | Nichols: error; comments invited inference of guilt | State: isolated comment; not fundamental error | Yes; fundamental error; convictions reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (U.S. 1965) (prohibition on commenting on a defendant’s failure to testify)
- Boatright v. State, 759 N.E.2d 1038 (Ind. 2001) (commentary on silence may infringe Fifth Amendment rights)
- Moore v. State, 669 N.E.2d 733 (Ind. 1996) (prosecution cannot penalize exercise of right to remain silent)
- Reynolds v. State, 797 N.E.2d 864 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (fundamental error when improper comment invades Fifth Amendment rights)
- Hand v. State, 863 N.E.2d 386 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (Fifth Amendment protections against silence comments cited)