Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any Aug 18 2014, 9:26 am court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
SUZY ST. JOHN GREGORY F. ZOELLER Marion County Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana GEORGE P. SHERMAN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
PRINCE SANTIAGO, ) ) Appellant-Defendant, ) ) vs. ) No. 49A05-1312-CR-619 ) STATE OF INDIANA, ) ) Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Christina Klineman, Commissioner Cause No. 49F10-1307-CM-045417
August 18, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
FRIEDLANDER, Judge Prince Santiago appeals following his conviction of Resisting Law Enforcement1
as a class A misdemeanor. Santiago presents the following issue for our review: Did the
trial court abuse its discretion in denying Santiago’s motion for a mistrial?
We affirm.
On the afternoon of July 11, 2013, Officer Lee Rabensteine of the Indianapolis
Metropolitan Police Department was dispatched to respond to a report of a theft. The
suspect was described as a light-skinned black man wearing grey shorts and no shirt, with
long dreadlocks and multiple tattoos. The suspect was reported to be running west on
34th Street. Officer Rabensteine drove toward the area he believed the suspect would be
headed and saw a man matching the description he had been given, who was later
identified as Santiago, crossing the street. Santiago looked directly at Officer
Rabensteine and then took off running. Officer Rabensteine activated his patrol car’s
emergency lights and drove alongside Santiago. Officer Rabensteine then exited his
patrol car and yelled for Santiago to stop. Santiago did not comply and continued to flee.
Officer Rabensteine pursued Santiago on foot, but lost sight of him as he cut between
houses. Other officers then joined Officer Rabensteine and set up a perimeter.
Officer Rabensteine waited in an alley for about one minute before he spotted
Santiago running westbound. Officer Rabensteine again yelled for Santiago to stop and
pursued him on foot. Officer Rabensteine lost sight of Santiago as he ran around the side
of a duplex, which Officer Rabensteine believed Santiago had entered. Officers
1 Ind. Code Ann. § 35-44.1-3-1 (West, Westlaw current with all 2014 Public Laws of the 2014 Second Regular Session and Second Regular Technical Session of the 118th General Assembly).
2 surrounded the duplex and Officer Rabensteine knocked on the front door, asking the
occupants to come out. The owner of the adjoining apartment came out and consented to
a search of his apartment. When the officers confirmed that Santiago was not inside, they
continued shouting for the occupants of the other apartment to come out. Eventually, a
woman stuck her head out an upstairs window, and Officer Rabensteine saw Santiago
walk by behind her. Eventually, Santiago came downstairs and surrendered to the police.
When he did so, Officer Rabensteine observed that Santiago’s hair had been roughly cut
and that there were hair clippings along the collar of his shirt and the back of his neck.
As a result of these events, the State charged Santiago with class A misdemeanor
resisting law enforcement. A jury trial was held on November 25, 2013. Santiago’s
theory of defense was that he was not the individual who had run from Officer
Rabensteine, and that he had been inside the apartment with his girlfriend. Santiago
claimed that when he saw that police had surrounded the apartment, he cut off his
dreadlocks in an attempt to conceal his identity because he knew that a warrant had been
issued for his arrest due to a probation violation. Specifically, in opening statements,
defense counsel stated that Santiago had “freak[ed] out” because he knew he had a
“probation violation warrant, and the police [were] probably coming to take him to jail.”
Transcript at 84. After discussing the matter with counsel, the trial court ruled that the
State was free to elicit testimony from Officer Rabensteine that there was a warrant for
Santiago’s arrest for a probation violation, but that evidence concerning the crime for
which Santiago was on probation was not admissible.
3 On the State’s direct examination of Officer Rabensteine, the following exchange
occurred:
Q: And did he have any warrants for his arrest? A. He did have a warrant for his arrest. Q: Do you know what that was for? A: It was either a C or B felony . . . .
Id. at 108. At that point, Santiago objected and requested a mistrial. The trial court
denied the motion for a mistrial and instructed the jury to disregard the testimony
concerning the crime for which Santiago was on probation, noting specifically that it was
irrelevant and “very well may not be accurate.” Id. at 112-13. At the conclusion of the
evidence, the jury found Santiago guilty as charged. Santiago now appeals.
Santiago argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for
a mistrial. “We review a trial court’s decision to deny a mistrial for abuse of discretion
because the trial court is in ‘the best position to gauge the surrounding circumstances of
an event and its impact on the jury.’” Pittman v. State, 885 N.E.2d 1246, 1255 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2008) (quoting McManus v. State, 814 N.E.2d 253, 260 (Ind. 2004)). “A mistrial is
an extreme remedy that is warranted only when less severe remedies will not
satisfactorily correct the error.” Banks v. State, 761 N.E.2d 403, 405 (Ind. 2002). To
prevail on an appeal from the denial of a motion for a mistrial, a defendant must establish
that the event or information precipitating the motion was so prejudicial and
inflammatory that he was placed in a position of grave peril to which he should not have
been subjected. Burks v. State, 838 N.E.2d 510 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. We
determine the gravity of the peril by considering the probable persuasive effect on the
4 jury’s decision. Id. Reversible error is seldom found where the trial court has
admonished the jury to disregard the questioned statement. Id.
Santiago argues that the testimony set forth above amounted to an evidentiary
harpoon. “An evidentiary harpoon is the placing of inadmissible evidence before the jury
with the deliberate purpose of prejudicing the jurors against the defendant.” Kirby v.
State, 774 N.E.2d 523, 535 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. In certain circumstances,
the injection of an evidentiary harpoon may constitute prosecutorial misconduct requiring
a mistrial. Roberts v. State, 712 N.E.2d 23 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). To prevail on such a
claim, the defendant must show that: (1) the prosecution acted deliberately to prejudice
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any Aug 18 2014, 9:26 am court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
SUZY ST. JOHN GREGORY F. ZOELLER Marion County Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana GEORGE P. SHERMAN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
PRINCE SANTIAGO, ) ) Appellant-Defendant, ) ) vs. ) No. 49A05-1312-CR-619 ) STATE OF INDIANA, ) ) Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Christina Klineman, Commissioner Cause No. 49F10-1307-CM-045417
August 18, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
FRIEDLANDER, Judge Prince Santiago appeals following his conviction of Resisting Law Enforcement1
as a class A misdemeanor. Santiago presents the following issue for our review: Did the
trial court abuse its discretion in denying Santiago’s motion for a mistrial?
We affirm.
On the afternoon of July 11, 2013, Officer Lee Rabensteine of the Indianapolis
Metropolitan Police Department was dispatched to respond to a report of a theft. The
suspect was described as a light-skinned black man wearing grey shorts and no shirt, with
long dreadlocks and multiple tattoos. The suspect was reported to be running west on
34th Street. Officer Rabensteine drove toward the area he believed the suspect would be
headed and saw a man matching the description he had been given, who was later
identified as Santiago, crossing the street. Santiago looked directly at Officer
Rabensteine and then took off running. Officer Rabensteine activated his patrol car’s
emergency lights and drove alongside Santiago. Officer Rabensteine then exited his
patrol car and yelled for Santiago to stop. Santiago did not comply and continued to flee.
Officer Rabensteine pursued Santiago on foot, but lost sight of him as he cut between
houses. Other officers then joined Officer Rabensteine and set up a perimeter.
Officer Rabensteine waited in an alley for about one minute before he spotted
Santiago running westbound. Officer Rabensteine again yelled for Santiago to stop and
pursued him on foot. Officer Rabensteine lost sight of Santiago as he ran around the side
of a duplex, which Officer Rabensteine believed Santiago had entered. Officers
1 Ind. Code Ann. § 35-44.1-3-1 (West, Westlaw current with all 2014 Public Laws of the 2014 Second Regular Session and Second Regular Technical Session of the 118th General Assembly).
2 surrounded the duplex and Officer Rabensteine knocked on the front door, asking the
occupants to come out. The owner of the adjoining apartment came out and consented to
a search of his apartment. When the officers confirmed that Santiago was not inside, they
continued shouting for the occupants of the other apartment to come out. Eventually, a
woman stuck her head out an upstairs window, and Officer Rabensteine saw Santiago
walk by behind her. Eventually, Santiago came downstairs and surrendered to the police.
When he did so, Officer Rabensteine observed that Santiago’s hair had been roughly cut
and that there were hair clippings along the collar of his shirt and the back of his neck.
As a result of these events, the State charged Santiago with class A misdemeanor
resisting law enforcement. A jury trial was held on November 25, 2013. Santiago’s
theory of defense was that he was not the individual who had run from Officer
Rabensteine, and that he had been inside the apartment with his girlfriend. Santiago
claimed that when he saw that police had surrounded the apartment, he cut off his
dreadlocks in an attempt to conceal his identity because he knew that a warrant had been
issued for his arrest due to a probation violation. Specifically, in opening statements,
defense counsel stated that Santiago had “freak[ed] out” because he knew he had a
“probation violation warrant, and the police [were] probably coming to take him to jail.”
Transcript at 84. After discussing the matter with counsel, the trial court ruled that the
State was free to elicit testimony from Officer Rabensteine that there was a warrant for
Santiago’s arrest for a probation violation, but that evidence concerning the crime for
which Santiago was on probation was not admissible.
3 On the State’s direct examination of Officer Rabensteine, the following exchange
occurred:
Q: And did he have any warrants for his arrest? A. He did have a warrant for his arrest. Q: Do you know what that was for? A: It was either a C or B felony . . . .
Id. at 108. At that point, Santiago objected and requested a mistrial. The trial court
denied the motion for a mistrial and instructed the jury to disregard the testimony
concerning the crime for which Santiago was on probation, noting specifically that it was
irrelevant and “very well may not be accurate.” Id. at 112-13. At the conclusion of the
evidence, the jury found Santiago guilty as charged. Santiago now appeals.
Santiago argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for
a mistrial. “We review a trial court’s decision to deny a mistrial for abuse of discretion
because the trial court is in ‘the best position to gauge the surrounding circumstances of
an event and its impact on the jury.’” Pittman v. State, 885 N.E.2d 1246, 1255 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2008) (quoting McManus v. State, 814 N.E.2d 253, 260 (Ind. 2004)). “A mistrial is
an extreme remedy that is warranted only when less severe remedies will not
satisfactorily correct the error.” Banks v. State, 761 N.E.2d 403, 405 (Ind. 2002). To
prevail on an appeal from the denial of a motion for a mistrial, a defendant must establish
that the event or information precipitating the motion was so prejudicial and
inflammatory that he was placed in a position of grave peril to which he should not have
been subjected. Burks v. State, 838 N.E.2d 510 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. We
determine the gravity of the peril by considering the probable persuasive effect on the
4 jury’s decision. Id. Reversible error is seldom found where the trial court has
admonished the jury to disregard the questioned statement. Id.
Santiago argues that the testimony set forth above amounted to an evidentiary
harpoon. “An evidentiary harpoon is the placing of inadmissible evidence before the jury
with the deliberate purpose of prejudicing the jurors against the defendant.” Kirby v.
State, 774 N.E.2d 523, 535 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. In certain circumstances,
the injection of an evidentiary harpoon may constitute prosecutorial misconduct requiring
a mistrial. Roberts v. State, 712 N.E.2d 23 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). To prevail on such a
claim, the defendant must show that: (1) the prosecution acted deliberately to prejudice
the jury; and (2) the evidence was inadmissible. Id. Moreover, as with any other request
for a mistrial, a defendant alleging an evidentiary harpoon must further establish that he
was “placed in a position of grave peril to which he should not have been subjected.”
Jewell v. State, 672 N.E.2d 417, 424 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied.
As an initial matter, we are unconvinced by Santiago’s argument that the
prosecuting attorney deliberately elicited testimony concerning the crime for which
Santiago was on probation. The trial court had previously ruled that the prosecution
could “ask the officer about the warrant, and that it’s a probation violation.” Transcript
at 87. The prosecuting attorney did not ask Officer Rabensteine about the crime for
which Santiago was on probation; instead, the State asked Officer Rabensteine whether
there was a warrant for Santiago’s arrest and, upon receiving an affirmative response,
what the warrant was for. In other words, the State’s question was designed to elicit
testimony that the warrant had been issued for a probation violation, which the trial court
5 had previously ruled admissible. The fact that the prosecuting attorney subsequently
argued that the defense had opened the door to the admission of evidence concerning the
crime for which Santiago was on probation does nothing to alter the nature of the
question it actually asked. Because Santiago has not established that the prosecution
acted deliberately, he has not established prosecutorial misconduct amounting to an
evidentiary harpoon.
Moreover, even assuming that the prosecuting attorney and/or Officer Rabensteine
acted deliberately, we cannot conclude that Santiago was placed in a position of grave
peril. By informing the jury that there was a warrant out for his arrest for a probation
violation, Santiago had already put the jury on notice that he had a criminal history.
Moreover, the trial court adequately admonished the jury that it was to disregard Officer
Rabensteine’s testimony concerning the crime for which Santiago was on probation,
noting specifically that it was irrelevant and “very well may not be accurate.” Id. at 112-
13. We are unconvinced by Santiago’s arguments that the admonishment in this case was
insufficient to cure the error; indeed, the trial court stated that it believed the jury
understood the admonishment because the jurors nodded when it was given. We
therefore conclude that Santiago has not rebutted the presumption that the admonishment
cured the error. See Emerson v. State, 952 N.E.2d 832, 840 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011)
(explaining that “where the trial court adequately admonishes a jury, an admonishment is
presumed to cure any error that may have occurred”), trans. denied. Under these
circumstances, we cannot conclude that Officer Rabensteine’s brief reference to a “C or
6 B felony” prejudiced Santiago to such a degree as to necessitate the extreme remedy of a
mistrial. Transcript at 108.
Judgment affirmed.
VAIDIK, C.J., and MAY, J., concur.