Timothy H. Bryant v. State of Indiana
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 552
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Timothy H. Bryant operated Summit City pawnshop in Fort Wayne and was required by local ordinance to upload pawn/sales records to the LEADS database within 24 hours.
- In 2013 an investigation into thefts from Wells County traced stolen items to multiple Fort Wayne pawnshops; evidence showed several stolen items were pawned at Summit City and not uploaded to LEADS.
- Witnesses (including Coverdale, Haney, and Isaiah) admitted selling stolen goods at Summit City; Coverdale testified Bryant knew items were stolen and said he would "get rid of [her] LEADS."
- Bryant introduced Summit City records and called employee Thomas Skinner, who testified of upload problems; the prosecutor questioned whether Bryant had produced corroborating records to show such problems.
- Jury convicted Bryant of two counts of Class D felony aiding/receiving stolen property and Class C corrupt business influence; trial court sentenced him to an aggregate four-year term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct / mistrial | Prosecutor’s cross-exam and comment attacked defense exhibit credibility and impeachment was proper. | Bryant argued prosecutor improperly shifted burden to him and commented on his not testifying (Fifth Amendment), warranting mistrial. | Court held comments were proper impeachment of defense evidence, not burden-shifting or Griffin violation; any error cured by jury instructions. |
| Venue in Wells County | State argued venue proper because victims and some acts were in Wells County; venue need not depend on defendant's knowledge of victims’ location. | Bryant argued State failed to prove he knew items were stolen from Wells County, so venue was improper. | Court held venue satisfied: statute allows trial where acts in furtherance occurred and venue has no mens rea requirement; conviction affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maldonado v. State, 355 N.E.2d 843 (Ind. 1976) (standard for mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct)
- Everroad v. State, 571 N.E.2d 1240 (Ind. 1991) (assessing prejudice from prosecutorial misconduct)
- Stephenson v. State, 742 N.E.2d 463 (Ind. 2001) (prosecutor may not suggest defendant bears burden; court may cure improper comments with instruction)
- Lopez v. State, 527 N.E.2d 1119 (Ind. 1988) (prosecutor may comment on witness credibility when based on evidence)
- Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (U.S. 1965) (prohibition on prosecutorial comment about defendant's failure to testify)
- Boatright v. State, 759 N.E.2d 1038 (Ind. 2001) (totality of comments must be addressed to evidence, not failure to testify)
- United States v. Johnson, 510 F.3d 521 (4th Cir. 2007) (venue does not require foreseeability or mens rea; statutory venue tied to where acts occurred)
- Joyner v. State, 678 N.E.2d 386 (Ind. 1997) (venue may be concurrent where elements committed in multiple counties)
- Cutter v. State, 725 N.E.2d 401 (Ind. 2000) (defendant cannot avoid trial where precise location of the act is unknowable)