Charles D. St. Clair v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any
Aug 31 2020, 10:45 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
David A. Felts Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Fort Wayne, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Megan Smith
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Charles D. St. Clair, August 31, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A-CR-662
v. Appeal from the Allen Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Wendy Davis,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
The Honorable John C. Bohdan,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
02D04-1908-CM-3697
Altice, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-662 | August 31, 2020 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Following a jury trial, Charles St. Clair was convicted of possession of
marijuana as a Class B misdemeanor. On appeal, St. Clair argues that the trial
court erred in admitting testimony that officers recognized him from a previous
investigation and that he had an active warrant for his arrest.
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] On August 11, 2019, Detective Geoff Norton of the Fort Wayne Police
Department was on patrol in an unmarked police car when he observed St.
Clair standing next to a disabled vehicle. Detective Norton recognized St. Clair
from a prior investigation and believed St. Clair had an active warrant for his
arrest. Upon verifying that the warrant was still active, Detective Norton
requested assistance. After a second officer arrived, Detective Norton and the
other officer approached St. Clair, ordered him to turn around and place his
hands behind his back, and attempted to place him in handcuffs. The officers
were able to secure St. Clair by pinning him against the vehicle. During a
search incident to arrest, Detective Norton located a clear, plastic baggy that
contained a green, leafy substance in St. Clair’s pocket. The substance weighed
less than one gram and tested positive for marijuana.
[4] On August 12, 2019, the State charged St. Clair with resisting law enforcement
as a Class A misdemeanor, as he was alleged to have “violently pulled away”
from the detectives when they tried to put him in handcuffs, and possession of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-662 | August 31, 2020 Page 2 of 5
marijuana as a Class B misdemeanor. Transcript Vol. 2 at 25. On January 8,
2020, St. Clair filed a pretrial motion in limine requesting that the State refrain
from eliciting comments pertaining to any prior or subsequent interactions with
him, references to the officers working in the gang and violent crime unit, or
any mention that there was an active warrant for his arrest. The State agreed
not to elicit references to any prior or subsequent bad acts committed by St.
Clair. The trial court ruled that the officers could testify that they recognized
St. Clair from a prior investigation but could not provide the details of that prior
investigation, including the fact that St. Clair refused to identify himself. The
trial court also ruled that the officers were permitted to mention that St. Clair
had an active warrant for his arrest but that they could not describe the basis for
the warrant.
[5] A jury trial was held on January 9, 2020. The officers testified in accordance
with the trial court’s ruling on the motion in limine. At the conclusion of the
evidence, the jury found St. Clair guilty of possession of marijuana and not
guilty of resisting law enforcement. The trial court sentenced St. Clair to 100
days executed in the Allen County Confinement Facility with credit for time
served. St. Clair now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
Discussion & Decision
[6] St. Clair argues that admission of evidence relating to his prior interactions with
Detective Norton and the fact that there was a warrant for his arrest caused
undue prejudice and prevented him from receiving a fair trial. St. Clair asserts
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-662 | August 31, 2020 Page 3 of 5
that “the jury was tainted as they held the belief that [he] was a criminal”
independent of the evidence in this case. Appellant’s Brief at 11.
[7] Because St. Clair is appealing after a completed trial, the issue is whether the
trial court abused its discretion in admitting the challenged evidence. Clark v.
State, 994 N.E.2d 252, 259-60 (Ind. 2013). The decision to admit or exclude
evidence at trial is a matter within the discretion of the trial court and the
court’s decision should be afforded great deference on appeal. Hall v. State, 36
N.E.3d 459, 466 (Ind. 2015).
[8] We begin by noting that St. Clair failed to object to the contested statements at
trial. 1 As a general rule, the failure to object at trial to the admission of
evidence waives any claims of error unless fundamental error can be
established. Konopasek v. State, 946 N.E.2d 23, 27 (Ind. 2011). Fundamental
error is a “very narrow” exception to the waiver rule and consists of error that
“make[s] a fair trial impossible or constitute[s] a clearly blatant violation of
basic and elementary principles of due process presenting an undeniable and
substantial potential for harm.” Kelly v. State, 122 N.E.3d 803, 805 (Ind. 2019).
On appeal, St. Clair does not provide the standard of review or argue that
admission of the challenged evidence amounted to fundamental error. Because
St. Clair failed to object to the specific statements during the officers’ testimony
1
On appeal, St. Clair does not even acknowledge that he did not object at trial to the challenged testimony.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-662 | August 31, 2020 Page 4 of 5
and has not argued fundamental error on appeal, we find that any claim as to
the admissibility of the challenged evidence has been waived. 2
[9] Judgment affirmed.
Riley, J. and May, J., concur.
2
Failure to make a cogent argument or cite legal authority as required by Indiana App. Rule 46(A)(8) waives
the issue. Burnell v. State, 110 N.E.3d 1167, 1171 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-662 | August 31, 2020 Page 5 of 5