Brown v. State
| Decision Date | 28 April 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-781A73,4-781A73 |
| Citation | 434 N.E.2d 144 |
| Parties | Jerry W. BROWN, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Robert G. Forbes, Hartford City, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Latriealle Wheat, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Jerry W. Brown was indicted by a Blackford Circuit Court grand jury charging him with involuntary manslaughter. He was tried by jury and convicted. He appeals contending, among other things, that the unauthorized presence and participation by the investigating officer during the grand jury proceedings prejudiced his substantial rights and warranted the dismissal of the indictment. 1 We agree and reverse. 2
The grand jury was convened to inquire into the death of a two and one-half year old child, Phillip Paul Scism, also known as "Skeeter." The child's mother, Rhonda Scism, and the defendant-appellant, Jerry Brown, were the targets of the grand jury's inquiry. During the grand jury proceedings fifteen witnesses testified. Douglas Mann, an Indiana State Police detective and the investigating officer, was present. The prosecuting attorney, Allen Mattson, conducted the examination of witnesses. Sergeant Mann actively intervened with questions to nine of the witnesses including the suspects, Brown and Scism. Near the conclusion of the grand jury's activity, Mann testified. Two tapes of interviews with the suspects obtained by Mann were played. At the conclusion of the grand jury session, true bills were returned charging Brown with involuntary manslaughter and the mother, Rhonda Scism with involuntary manslaughter and neglect. 3
The defendant Brown moved the trial court to dismiss the indictment against him because of the unauthorized presence of and participation by Indiana State Police Sergeant Douglas Mann in the grand jury room during the proceedings. The trial judge, after examining the transcript of the grand jury proceedings, made the following factual findings:
"Sgt. Mann was present in the Grand Jury Room and assisted the Prosecutor in presenting the testimony of witnesses, & at various times asked questions of witnesses; & at various times he provided some background information or erstatz' testimony' (sic) to the Grand Jury during the testimony of other witnesses; & he put pressure on the witness Carroll to testify more fully and honestly; & he and the Prosecutor put pressure on Jerry Brown and Rhonda Schism (sic) to testify in spite of their refusal to testify after the advise (sic) of counsel."
Based upon those facts, he correctly concluded that "this is a clear defect in the Grand Jury proceedings." State v. Bowman, (1981) Ind., 423 N.E.2d 605, 606 (). However, the trial judge went on to conclude the following:
Our Supreme Court recently reiterated the rule that the presence of unauthorized persons during grand jury proceedings does not warrant per se dismissal of an indictment. State v. Bowman, supra. We also understand that the presence of unauthorized persons who participate in interrogation may not result in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Averhart v. State
...... There is no showing that the grand jury was improperly constituted pursuant to statute or that there was any improper conduct of the grand jury. Averhart's citation to Brown v. State, (1982) Ind.App., 434 N.E.2d 144, trans. denied, does not support his position. In Brown, we first noted the issue was properly and timely raised and denied by the trial court. In Brown, it also was shown there was conduct which was contrary to the statute limiting who may be present ......
- Brown v. State
-
Deardorf v. State, 1-1184
...... Fair v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 380, 364 N.E.2d 1007; Sappenfield v. State, (1984) Ind.App., 462 N.E.2d 241. Where the trial court finds the officer's presence intrusive; producing pressure on the other witnesses and the jurors, the indictment should be dismissed. Brown v. State, (1982) Ind.App., 434 N.E.2d 144. Deardorf aligns the present facts with those in Bowman, supra. In both situations the officer present had been the case investigator who had interviewed most of the grand jury witnesses and was introduced at the hearing as such. The ......
-
Ajabu v. State, 22A01-9605-CR-143
...... See Musgrave v. State, 133 Ind. 297, 304, 32 N.E. 885, 888 (1892) (defects that do not affect substantial rights of defendant are not sufficient to require quashing of indictment or information); Brown v. State, 434 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind.Ct.App.1982) (presence of unauthorized persons during grand jury proceedings must result in prejudice to defendant's substantial rights). Ajabu must establish that the instructions as a whole were so misleading or deficient that the fundamental integrity of the ......