Shannon Randolph v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A02-1605-CR-972
| Ind. Ct. App. | Feb 3, 2017Background
- In November 2014, N.D. and Shannon Randolph, who had a prior consensual relationship, met at N.D.’s apartment, drank, and later an altercation occurred in which N.D. alleges Randolph forcibly raped her, threatened her with a gun, and stole property. Physical evidence (ripped underwear, hair, bruises, cut lip, semen) supported the assault claim.
- Randolph was charged with multiple felonies; a jury convicted him on nine counts, but the court entered judgment on four counts (one Level 1 rape, two Level 3 rapes, one Level 3 robbery) and sentenced him to an aggregate 32-year term (with some suspension and probation).
- During closing argument, defense counsel argued intoxication and that N.D. may have overreacted upon learning Randolph was married. In rebuttal the prosecutor said, in substance, that calling the alcohol issue "victim blaming," and made comments implying belief in the victim that the judge partially curtailed (sustaining objections and prohibiting the prosecutor’s use of "I").
- The court admonished the jury that attorneys’ statements are not evidence and instructed them to decide based on the evidence and law. Defense moved for a mistrial during deliberations; the court denied the motion after reviewing the arguments and observing the jury.
- Randolph appealed, claiming prosecutorial misconduct based on (1) the prosecutor labeling the alcohol argument as "victim blaming," and (2) the prosecutor "vouching" for the victim by expressing personal belief in her testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Randolph) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether calling the alcohol argument "victim blaming" was prosecutorial misconduct | Prosecutor properly rebutted defense inference that intoxication explained or justified N.D.’s conduct; response to defense argument is permitted | The comment unfairly attacked defense counsel’s theory and impermissibly shifted focus to the victim | Not misconduct — prosecutor may respond to defense inferences; comment was responsive and not improper |
| Whether prosecutor "vouched" for the victim by saying "I believe her but" | Statement was an explanation of a juror’s possible thought ("I believe her but I wanted more") and not the prosecutor’s personal vouching after court excluded "I" | The language constituted impermissible vouching and violated professional conduct rules, affecting juror impartiality | Not misconduct — rephrasing and court’s curative rulings removed improper personal advocacy; statement addressed burden of proof, not testimonial credibility endorsement |
| Whether the prosecutor’s remarks (if improper) placed Randolph in "grave peril" requiring mistrial | Any remarks were brief, addressed defense arguments, and cured by sustained objections, admonitions, and final instructions; substantial physical evidence supported convictions | Remarks prejudiced the jury and required a mistrial because admonitions were insufficient | No grave peril — objections sustained, jury admonished, final instructions given, and strong physical evidence made any error harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Bass v. State, 947 N.E.2d 456 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (contemporaneous objection and request for admonishment required to preserve prosecutorial-misconduct claim)
- Cooper v. State, 854 N.E.2d 831 (Ind. 2006) (two-step review: whether prosecutor engaged in misconduct and whether misconduct placed defendant in grave peril)
- Ryan v. State, 9 N.E.3d 663 (Ind. 2014) (prosecutor may respond to allegations and inferences raised by the defense)