Brummett v. State, 49A02–1304–CR–378.
| Decision Date | 20 August 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 49A02–1304–CR–378.,49A02–1304–CR–378. |
| Citation | 21 N.E.3d 840 (Mem) |
| Parties | Brandon BRUMMETT, Appellant–Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
The State seeks rehearing following our opinion, Brummett v. State, 10 N.E.3d 78 (Ind.Ct.App.2014), arguing that this Court failed to apply an appropriately high standard for fundamental error when reversing appellant-defendant Brandon Brummett's convictions for child molesting due to prosecutorial misconduct. The State argues that this Court should apply the fundamental error standard as recently articulated by our Supreme Court in Ryan v. State, 9 N.E.3d 663 (Ind.2014), handed down June 3, 2014. We issue this opinion on rehearing but re-affirm our original decision in all respects, finding that the prosecutorial misconduct present in this case was much more egregious than that in Ryan and concluding that the prosecutor's misconduct did amount to fundamental error under the standard now to be used. Although we have granted rehearing, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stettler v. State
... ... to testify. A prosecutor is not permitted to vouch for a witness's truthfulness. Brummett v. State , 10 N.E.3d 78, 86 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), reaffirmed on reh'g , 21 N.E.3d 840, affirmed , 24 N.E.3d 965 (Ind. 2015). Yet the prosecution did ... ...
-
In re Keiffner, 49S00-1509-DI-522
... ... Respondent's 2007 admission to this state's bar subjects her to this Court's disciplinary jurisdiction. See IND. CONST. art. 7, 4.This ... In 2013, Respondent represented the State during the trial of Brandon Brummett on charges of child molesting and sexual misconduct with a minor. Both trials resulted in ... ...
-
Brummett v. State
...under the standard now to be used ,” thereby implying that Ryan may have created a new fundamental error standard. Brummett v. State, 21 N.E.3d 840 (Ind.Ct.App.2014) (emphasis added).Ryan did not alter the doctrine of fundamental error. It simply restated and applied the longstanding standa......
- Keeylen v. State, 49A05–1308–CR–419.