State of Indiana v. Tammy R. Herrmann ( 2020 )

FILED
Jul 29 2020, 10:11 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Michael C. Cunningham
Attorney General Judson G. McMillin
Mullin, McMillin &
Angela N. Sanchez
McMillin, LLP
Assistant Section Chief,
Brookville, Indiana
Criminal Appeals
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
State of Indiana, July 29, 2020
Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A-CR-307
v. Appeal from the
Franklin Circuit Court
Tammy R. Herrmann, The Honorable
Appellee-Defendant Clay M. Kellerman, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
24C02-1812-F5-1262
Vaidik, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] After Tammy R. Herrmann was indicted by a Franklin County grand jury for
theft and forgery, she filed a petition to appoint a special prosecutor, alleging
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-CR-307 | July 29, 2020 Page 1 of 6
that one of the three deputy prosecutors in the Franklin County Prosecutor’s
Office had a conflict of interest and therefore the whole office should be
disqualified. The trial court granted the petition and appointed a special
prosecutor. The State now appeals.
[2] It is well settled that if the elected prosecutor has a conflict of interest, the whole
office is disqualified. However, it is not necessary to disqualify the whole office
if one deputy has a conflict of interest. Here, it is not necessary to disqualify the
whole office, since the deputy prosecutor who has the conflict is a part-time
deputy who primarily handles child-support matters and has had no
involvement in the criminal case against Herrmann. We therefore reverse the
trial court.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] The Franklin County Prosecutor’s Office consists of the elected prosecutor and
three deputy prosecutors. Eugene Stewart is a part-time deputy prosecutor who
also maintains a private practice. Although Stewart primarily handles child-
support matters, see Tr. p. 8, his appearance has been entered in criminal cases
too.1
1
In a separate order issued today, we grant Herrmann’s motion to take judicial notice that Stewart’s
appearance has been entered in criminal cases.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-CR-307 | July 29, 2020 Page 2 of 6
[4] In 2018, Stewart represented the Estate of Evelyn Anthony. See Case No.
24C01-1808-EU-559. At some point, Maria Hensley, Evelyn’s niece and the
personal representative of the Estate, told Stewart she was concerned about
several checks written from Evelyn’s account. Either Stewart or Maria
contacted the prosecutor’s office, and an investigation ensued.
[5] In December 2018, a grand jury indicted Herrmann, a home healthcare worker,
for Level 5 felony theft and Level 6 felony forgery, alleging that she stole over
$50,000 from Evelyn’s account between 2012 and 2018. Stewart has had no
involvement with the criminal case against Herrmann. Id. at 8, 17.
[6] About a year later, in November 2019, Herrmann filed a petition to appoint a
special prosecutor under Indiana Code section 33-39-10-2(b)(2). Specifically,
she alleged that the Franklin County Prosecutor’s Office had an “actual conflict
of interest” because of Stewart’s representation of the Estate. Appellant’s App.
Vol. II p. 33. Following a hearing, the trial court granted Herrmann’s petition
and appointed the Dearborn County Prosecutor as special prosecutor.
Specifically, the court found that “clear and convincing evidence has been
presented establishing that the Franklin County Prosecutor’s Office has an
actual conflict of interest[.]” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 45.
[7] The State now brings this interlocutory appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-CR-307 | July 29, 2020 Page 3 of 6
Discussion and Decision
[8] The State appeals the trial court’s grant of Herrmann’s petition to appoint a
special prosecutor. We review a trial court’s grant or denial of such a petition
for an abuse of discretion. Camm v. State, 957 N.E.2d 205, 209 (Ind. Ct. App.
2011), trans. denied.
[9] The appointment of a special prosecutor is governed by Indiana Code section
33-39-10-2, which provides, in relevant part, that a trial court may appoint a
special prosecutor if:
(A) a person files a verified petition requesting the appointment
of a special prosecutor; and
(B) the court, after:
(i) notice is given to the prosecuting attorney; and
(ii) an evidentiary hearing is conducted at which the
prosecuting attorney is given an opportunity to be heard;
finds by clear and convincing evidence that the appointment is
necessary to avoid an actual conflict of interest . . . .
Ind. Code § 33-39-10-2(b)(2). The petitioner must produce evidence of an actual
conflict of interest. Larkin v. State, 43 N.E.3d 1281, 1285 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015);
Camm, 957 N.E.2d at 210. The purpose of the special-prosecutor statute is to
protect the State’s interest in preserving the public confidence in the criminal-
justice system and ensuring that the prosecutor serves the ends of justice. Camm,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-CR-307 | July 29, 2020 Page 4 of 6
957 N.E.2d at 210. “The public trust in the integrity of the judicial process
requires that any serious doubt be resolved in favor of disqualification.”
Williams v. State, 631 N.E.2d 485, 487 (Ind. 1994), reh’g denied.
[10] Here, Herrmann requests that the entire Franklin County Prosecutor’s Office be
disqualified based on Stewart’s conflict of interest. It is well settled that once the
elected prosecutor is disqualified, the whole office is disqualified “in order to
maintain the integrity of the process of criminal justice.” State ex rel. Goldsmith v.
Superior Court of Hancock Cnty., 270 Ind. 487, 491, 386 N.E.2d 942, 945 (1979);
see also Larkin, 43 N.E.3d at 1285; Banton v. State, 475 N.E.2d 1160, 1164 (Ind.
Ct. App. 1985). The whole office is disqualified because the “prosecuting
attorney exercises authority over and speaks through his deputies.” Goldsmith,
270 Ind. at 491, 386 N.E.2d at 945.
[11] However, it is not necessary to disqualify the whole office when one deputy
prosecutor has a conflict of interest. Williams, 631 N.E.2d at 487; see also Page v.
State, 689 N.E.2d 707, 709 (Ind. 1997). This is because the conflict of one
deputy generally does not affect the other deputies in the office. Goldsmith, 270
Ind. at 490, 386 N.E.2d at 945; Larkin, 43 N.E.3d at 1286; see also Johnson v.
State, 693 N.E.2d 941, 953 (Ind. 1998) (noting that “the principal holding in
State ex rel. Goldsmith was that the disqualification of an individual deputy
prosecutor did not mandate the disqualification of the prosecutor or the rest of
the prosecutor’s office”), reh’g denied; Swallow v. State, 19 N.E.3d 396, 400 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2014) (the fact that the deputy prosecutor previously represented the
defendant did not require the recusal of the entire prosecutor’s office since that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-CR-307 | July 29, 2020 Page 5 of 6
deputy did not work on the defendant’s case), trans. denied. Indiana’s approach
to the disqualification of prosecuting attorneys due to a conflict of interest has
primarily been a “top-down” approach, whereby an elected prosecutor’s
conflict is imputed to the deputies, but not vice-versa.
[12] Herrmann acknowledges this rule but claims that Stewart’s conflict of interest
requires the disqualification of the whole office given its small size. Herrmann,
however, cites no cases where the conflict of one deputy prosecutor required the
whole office to be disqualified. In any event, the State argues that the size of the
office does not matter here since Stewart primarily handles child-support
matters, and he has not worked on the criminal case against Herrmann. We
agree with the State. Although Stewart has a conflict of interest given his
involvement in the Estate case, it does not require the whole office to be
disqualified.2 We therefore reverse the trial court’s order appointing a special
prosecutor and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings.
[13] Reversed and remanded.
Baker, J., and Bailey, J., concur.
2
Herrmann claims that Stewart has a financial interest in the outcome of this case, as he stands to gain more
attorney’s fees in the Estate case if she is convicted and ordered to pay restitution to the Estate. At the
hearing, Stewart testified that he was paid a flat fee in the Estate case, that his fee had been paid, that his
involvement in the Estate case was over, and that if Herrmann was ordered to pay restitution to the Estate he
would not get any of it and it would go straight to the beneficiaries. Tr. p. 7. The record does not support
Herrmann’s claim that Stewart has a financial interest in the outcome of this case.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-CR-307 | July 29, 2020 Page 6 of 6