grounds for fundamental error in Indiana

2014Id. 6 “[A]n appellate claim of prosecutorial misconduct presented on appeal in the absence of [a] contemporaneous trial objection will not succeed unless the defendant established not only the grounds for prosecutorial misconduct but also the additional grounds for fundamental error.” Booher v. State, 773 N.E.2d 814, 818 (Ind. 2002).

2014Therefore, he must establish “not only the grounds for prosecutorial misconduct but also the additional grounds for fundamental error.” Booher, 773 N.E.2d at 818 .

2026And where, as here, a claim of prosecutorial misconduct is procedurally defaulted by the defendant’s failure to object at trial, the defendant must also establish “the additional grounds for fundamental error.” Cooper, 854 N.E.2d at 835 .

2025When a defendant appeals a claim of prosecutorial misconduct not timely brought before the trial court, he “must Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-97 | December 22, 2025 Page 27 of 45 establish not only the grounds for the misconduct but also the additional grounds for fundamental error.” Id.

2020Ryan v. State, 9 N.E.3d 663, 667-8 (Ind. 2014), reh’g denied.

2015Id. [14] Having failed to preserve his claims for appeal, Belcher must establish the grounds for prosecutorial misconduct as well the grounds for fundamental error.7 Belcher contends the prosecutor engaged in several instances of misconduct, which individually or cumulatively resulted in fundamental error: (1) misstating evidence while cross-examining Sabrina; (2) misrepresenting evidence during closing argument; (3) impermissibly commenting on Sabrina’s credibility; and (4) making improper remarks during closing argument.

2013Coleman v. State, 946 N.E.2d 1160, 1166 (Ind. 2011) (internal citation omitted).

2013Coleman v. State, 946 N.E.2d 1160, 1166 (Ind. 2011).

2013Booher [v. State], 773 N.E.2d [814], 817 [(Ind. 2002)]; see also Johnson v. State, 725 N.E.2d 864, 867 (Ind. 2000) (A party’s failure to present a contemporaneous trial objection asserting prosecutorial misconduct results in waiver of appellate review.).

2012Booher, 773 N.E.2d at 817 ; see also Johnson v. State, 725 N.E.2d 864, 867 (Ind. 2000) (A party’s failure to present a contemporaneous trial objection asserting prosecutorial misconduct results in waiver of appellate review).

2014“To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct that has been procedurally defaulted, the defendant must establish not only the grounds for the prosecutorial misconduct, but also the additional grounds for fundamental error.” Neville, 976 N.E.2d at 1258 ; see also Brown, 799 N.E.2d at 1066 .

2013“To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct that has been procedurally 16 defaulted, the defendant must establish not only the grounds for the prosecutorial misconduct, but also the additional grounds for fundamental error.” Neville, 976 N.E.2d at 1258 ; see also Brown, 799 N.E.2d at 1066 .

2019Fundamental error occurs when the violations “make a fair trial impossible or constitute clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process.” Benson v. State, 762 N.E.2d 748, 756 (Ind. 2002).

2018Id. at 818 . [17] Under the theory of accomplice liability, a person who knowingly or intentionally aids, induces, or causes another person to commit a crime is guilty of committing that crime himself.

2025Prosecutorial misconduct constitutes fundamental error if it “made a fair trial impossible or [was] a clearly blatant violation of basic and elementary principles of due process that present[ed] an undeniable and substantial potential for harm.” Ferree v. State, 124 N.E.3d 109, 114 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. [50] Here, the record supports the reasonable inference that Tandy’s attorney was aware of the deputy prosecutor’s alleged misconduct before trial yet did not raise the issue by objection or motion before or during trial.

2019Therefore, he “must establish not only the grounds for prosecutorial misconduct but also the additional grounds for fundamental error.” McKinney v. State, 873 N.E.2d 630, 642 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied.

2018Booher, 773 N.E.2d 814 ; see also Baer v. State, 942 N.E.2d 80, 99 (Ind. 2011) (noting it is “highly unlikely” to prevail on a claim of fundamental error relating to prosecutorial misconduct).

2015“The ‘fundamental error’ exception is extremely narrow, and applies only when the error constitutes a blatant violation of basic principles, the harm or potential for harm is substantial, and the resulting error denies the defendant fundamental due process.” Halliburton v. State, 1 N.E.3d 670, 678 (Ind.2013) (alteration omitted) (quoting Mathews v. State, 849 N.E.2d 578, 587 (Ind.2006)).

2015“The ‘fundamental error’ exception is extremely narrow, and applies only when the error constitutes a blatant violation of basic principles, the harm or potential for harm is substantial, and the resulting error denies the defendant fundamental due process.” Halliburton v. State, 1 N.E.3d 670, 678 (Ind.2013) (alteration omitted) (quoting Mathews v. State, 849 N.E.2d 578, 587 (Ind.2006)).

2005Zenthofer v. State, 613 N.E.2d 31, 34 (Ind.1993). "[AJn appellate claim of prosecutorial misconduct presented on appeal in the absence of contemporaneous trial objection will not succeed unless the defendant establishes not only the grounds for prosecutorial misconduct but also the additional grounds for fundamental error." Booher v. State, 773 N.E.2d 814, 817 (Ind.2002).

2004See id. at 818 ("[An appellate claim of prosecutorial misconduct presented on appeal in the absence of contemporaneous trial objection will not succeed unless the defendant establishes not only the grounds for prosecutorial misconduct but also the additional grounds for fundamental error.").