properly preserved claim in Indiana

2024“Where a claim of prosecutorial misconduct has not been properly preserved, our standard for review is different from that of a properly preserved claim.” Cooper v. State, 854 N.E.2d 831, 835 (Ind. 2006).

2020As a general matter, “‘[i]n reviewing a properly preserved claim of prosecutorial misconduct, we determine (1) whether the prosecutor engaged in misconduct, and if so, (2) whether the misconduct, under all of the circumstances, placed the defendant in a position of grave peril to which he or she would not have been subjected.’” Jones v. State, 101 N.E.3d 249, 257 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (quoting Cooper v. State, 854 N.E.2d 831, 835 (Ind. 2006)), trans. denied.

2015Castillo v. State, 974 N.E.2d 458, 468 (Ind.2012).

2014“We evaluate a properly preserved claim of prosecutorial misconduct using a two-step analysis.” Castillo v. State, 974 N.E.2d 458, 468 (Ind. 2012).

2010For prose-cutorial misconduct to constitute fundamental error, it must "make a fair trial impossible or constitute clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process and present an undeniable and substantial potential for harm." Booher, 773 N.E.2d at 817 (citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted); see also Cooper v. State, 854 N.E.2d 831, 835 (Ind.2006) ("Where a claim of prosecutorial misconduct has not been properly preserved, our standard for review is different from that of a properly preserved claim.").

2007“In reviewing a properly preserved claim of prosecutorial misconduct, we would ‘determine (1) whether the prosecutor engaged in misconduct, and if so, (2) whether the misconduct, under all of the circumstances, placed the defendant in a position of grave peril to which he or she would not have been subjected.’ ” Id. at 817 (quoting Coleman v. State, 750 N.E.2d 370, 374 (Ind.2001)).

2007“In reviewing a properly preserved claim of prosecutorial misconduct, we would ‘determine (1) whether the prosecutor engaged in misconduct, and if so, (2) whether the misconduct, under all of the circumstances, placed the defendant in a position of grave peril to which he or she would not have been subjected.’ ” Id. at 817 (quoting Coleman v. State, 750 N.E.2d 370, 374 (Ind.2001)).

2002In reviewing a properly preserved claim of prosecutorial misconduct, we would “determine (1) whether the prosecutor engaged in misconduct, and if so, (2) whether the misconduct, under all of the circumstances, placed the defendant in a position of grave peril to which he or she would not have been subjected.” Coleman v. State, 750 N.E.2d 370, 374 (Ind.2001).

2020As a general matter, “‘[i]n reviewing a properly preserved claim of prosecutorial misconduct, we determine (1) whether the prosecutor engaged in misconduct, and if so, (2) whether the misconduct, under all of the circumstances, placed the defendant in a position of grave peril to which he or she would not have been subjected.’” Jones v. State, 101 N.E.3d 249, 257 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (quoting Cooper v. State, 854 N.E.2d 831, 835 (Ind. 2006)), trans. denied.

2019Mickens v. State, 742 N.E.2d 927, 929 (Ind. 2001). [24] Meredith’s mistrial motions were based upon alleged prosecutorial misconduct. “‘In reviewing a properly preserved claim of prosecutorial misconduct, we determine (1) whether the prosecutor engaged in misconduct, and if so, (2) whether the misconduct, under all of the circumstances, placed the defendant in a position of grave peril to which he or she would not have been subjected.’” Jones v. State, 101 N.E.3d 249, 257 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (quoting Cooper v. State, Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1332 | December 11,

2020We evaluate a properly preserved claim of prosecutorial misconduct by looking at “(1) whether misconduct occurred, and if so, (2) ‘whether the misconduct, under all of the circumstances, placed the defendant in a position of grave peril to which he or she would not have been subjected’ otherwise.” Ryan v. State, 9 N.E.3d 663, 667 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Cooper v. State, 854 N.E.2d 831, 835 (Ind. 2006)), reh’g denied.

2016When we review a properly preserved claim of prosecutorial misconduct, “we determine (1) whether misconduct occurred, and if so, (2) ‘whether the misconduct, under all of the circumstances, placed the defendant in a position of grave peril to which he or she would not have been subjected’ otherwise.” Ryan v. State, 9 N.E.3d 663, 667 (Ind. 2014) (citations omitted). [24] Willingham concedes that he failed to preserve the claims of prosecutorial misconduct he raises in this appeal.

2014Newsome v. State, 686 N.E.2d 868, 875 (Ind.Ct.App.1997).

2014Newsome v. State, 686 N.E.2d 868, 875 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997).

2012Ritchie v. State, 809 N.E.2d 258, 268-69 (Ind. 2004), reh’g denied, cert. denied.

2012Ritchie v. State, 809 N.E.2d 258, 268-69 (Ind. 2004), reh’g denied, cert. denied.

2003Hancock v. State, 737 N.E.2d 791, 797 (Ind.Ct.App. *1059 2000).

2002Hancock v. State, 737 N.E.2d 791, 797 (Ind.Ct.App.2000).

2002Wright v. State, 690 N.E.2d 1098, 1110 (Ind.1997).

2002Wright v. State, 690 N.E.2d 1098, 1110 (Ind.1997).

2019Mickens v. State, 742 N.E.2d 927, 929 (Ind. 2001). [24] Meredith’s mistrial motions were based upon alleged prosecutorial misconduct. “‘In reviewing a properly preserved claim of prosecutorial misconduct, we determine (1) whether the prosecutor engaged in misconduct, and if so, (2) whether the misconduct, under all of the circumstances, placed the defendant in a position of grave peril to which he or she would not have been subjected.’” Jones v. State, 101 N.E.3d 249, 257 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (quoting Cooper v. State, Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1332 | December 11,

2016“After all, a mistrial is an extreme remedy that is only justified when other remedial measures are insufficient to rectify the situation.” Id. [11] When a mistrial request is based on a properly-preserved claim of prosecutorial misconduct, the defendant must establish (1) that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct and (2) that the questioned conduct was so prejudicial and inflammatory that he was placed in a position of grave peril to which he should not have been subjected.

2018Williams v. State, 724 N.E.2d 1070, 1080 (Ind. 2000).

2016“If the analysis under this test demonstrates deficient performance, then we evaluate the prejudice prong which requires an examination of whether ‘the issues which . . . appellate counsel failed to raise would have been clearly more likely to result in reversal or an order for a new trial.’” Id. (quoting Bieghler v. State, 690 N.E.2d 188, 194 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied, cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1021 , 119 S. Ct. 550 (1998)). [36] Generally, in reviewing a properly preserved claim of prosecutorial misconduct, we determine: (1) whether the prosecutor engaged in misconduct, and if so, (2) whether t

2013Baer v. State, 866 N.E.2d 752, 756 (Ind.2007).

2007But for prosecutorial misconduct to constitute fundamental error, it must also “ ‘make a fair trial impossible or constitute clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process [and] present an undeniable and substantial potential for harm.’ ” Id. (quoting Benson v. State, 762 N.E.2d 748, 756 (Ind.2002)): With regard to the changes in Dominick’s and Connie’s testimony, we need not reach the question of fundamental error because we conclude that the prosecutor did not commit any misconduct.