Quintin Mayweather-Brown v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
20A03-1601-CR-206
Ind. Ct. App.Aug 19, 2016Background
- Defendant Quintin Mayweather-Brown was convicted by a jury of Class B felony burglary for items stolen from Craig Johnson’s apartment; distinctive stolen items later appeared in Brown’s Facebook photos.
- Investigators found a cut window screen, an unlocked window, and a fingerprint on an empty coin jar moved from the bedroom to the living room; the fingerprint was later identified as Brown’s through AFIS comparison.
- Brown proceeded pro se with standby counsel, filed a notice of alibi that the trial court deemed untimely, and the court excluded alibi witnesses (issue raised on appeal).
- During voir dire, a prospective juror (Whitaker) acknowledged a friendship with a prosecutor but said she could be fair; Brown used a peremptory to remove her and later moved to strike the whole panel because several jurors were crime victims.
- Brown objected to fingerprint evidence (chain of custody) and to certain prosecutor rebuttal remarks (arguing State shifted burden/impermissibly commented on silence); he also challenged sufficiency of the evidence on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of alibi notice/witnesses | State: Notice was untimely and properly excluded | Brown: Court abused discretion by rejecting his alibi notice and excluding witnesses | Waived on appeal: Brown failed to include the notice in the record and made no offer of proof, so review is barred |
| Challenge for cause to juror Whitaker | State: Trial court properly exercised discretion; juror said she could be fair | Brown: Whitaker admitted difficulty being impartial and should have been struck for cause | No reversible error: trial court’s denial was not arbitrary; Brown peremptorily struck Whitaker and failed to show he exhausted peremptories or was forced to accept a biased juror |
| Motion to strike entire jury panel | State: Though several venire members were crime victims, each said they could be impartial | Brown: Panel tainted because many had been victims of theft | No abuse of discretion: jurors who were victims unequivocally said they could be fair, so dismissal not warranted |
| Admissibility of fingerprint evidence (chain of custody) | State: Officer collected and sealed print, lab received sealed evidence, analyst matched print to Brown | Brown: Chain of custody was imperfect (evidence moved between labs), so fingerprint should be excluded | Admissible: State provided reasonable assurances of custody; gaps go to weight not admissibility under precedent |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in rebuttal argument | State: Prosecutor responded to defense theory and lack of contradictory evidence | Brown: Rebuttal improperly shifted burden and commented on his failure to call witness/testify | No misconduct: Comments addressed defense theory and absence of corroboration, not defendant’s silence or burden shift |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | State: Fingerprint on nonpublic, relocated object plus photos of Brown wearing stolen items supports identity | Brown: Fingerprint only on coin jar; no proof where/when print was made or that it was made during burglary | Sufficient: Fingerprint on a nonpublic, relocated item plus circumstantial evidence permitted reasonable inference Brown committed the burglary |
Key Cases Cited
- Brattain v. State, 777 N.E.2d 774 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (appellant must present an adequate record to preserve issues on appeal)
- Tyson v. State, 619 N.E.2d 276 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (offer of proof requirement to preserve exclusion of evidence)
- Herrera v. State, 679 N.E.2d 1322 (Ind. 1997) (failure to make offer of proof about alibi witnesses waives issue)
- Oswalt v. State, 19 N.E.3d 241 (Ind. 2014) (exhaustion rule for peremptories before appellate review of for-cause denial)
- Troxell v. State, 778 N.E.2d 811 (Ind. 2002) (chain of custody: State need not show perfect custody; gaps affect weight)
- Meehan v. State, 7 N.E.3d 255 (Ind. 2014) (fingerprints found at crime scene may suffice to prove identity)
- Mediate v. State, 498 N.E.2d 391 (Ind. 1986) (legitimate access to object and relocation of object are factors supporting inference prints were made during crime)
- Callahan v. State, 527 N.E.2d 1133 (Ind. 1988) (prosecutor may argue absence of explanation by defense so long as argument targets evidence, not defendant’s silence)