Date: 05-08-2022

Case Style:

VERONICA C REYES v. State of Indiana

Case Number: 21A-CR-02646

Judge: Nancy Vaidik

Court:

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

On appeal from The Marion Superior Court

Plaintiff's Attorney: Theodore E. Rokita
Attorney General
Alexandria Sons
Deputy Attorney General

Defendant's Attorney:

Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan

Click Here For The Best Indianapolis, IN. - Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory

Tell MoreLaw About Your Litigation Successes and MoreLaw Will Tell the World.

Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement

Counselor:

MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public.


MoreLaw will publish litigation reports submitted by you free of charge


Info@MoreLaw.com - 855-853-4800

Description:

Indianapolis, IN - Criminal Defense lawyer represented defendant with appealing her convictions for resisting law enforcement and reckless driving charges.

Veronica C. Reyes appeals her convictions for Class A misdemeanor resisting
law enforcement and Class C misdemeanor reckless driving, arguing the trial
court erred in giving final instructions before, instead of after, closing
arguments. In support, she notes Indiana Code section 35-37-2-2 provides jury
instructions come after closing arguments and that “[h]istorically, that order of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 21A-CR-2646 | May 6, 2022 Page 2 of 3
trial has been recognized and applied in Indiana.” Appellant’s Br. p. 12 (citing
Rogers v. State, 315 N.E.2d 707 (Ind. 1974)).
[2] As Reyes acknowledges, however, since 2003 the Indiana Jury Rules have
afforded trial courts the discretion to give final instructions before or after
closing arguments. Jury Rule 26(a) provides: “The court may, in its discretion,
give some or all final instructions before final arguments, and some or all final
instructions after final arguments.” See also Ind. Trial Rule 51(B) (providing
final instructions shall be given “in accordance with Jury Rule 26”). Reyes
doesn’t dispute that the trial and jury rules “trump statutes on matters of
procedure.” In re M.S., 140 N.E.3d 279, 284 (Ind. 2020). She claims, however,
that given Section 35-37-2-2 and historical practice, the presumption should be
that final instructions are given last and trial courts must provide a reason for
giving them before closing arguments.
[3] But that is not what Jury Rule 26(a) says. The rule gives trial courts the option
to give final instructions before or after closing arguments; there is no
presumption. The Indiana Supreme Court could have written a presumption
into Jury Rule 26(a), but it did not.
[4] There are also good reasons to give final instructions before or after closing
arguments. Reading final instructions before closing helps the jury better
understand counsels’ arguments about how the law applies to the facts. Further,
there would be no guessing during closing as to what the instructions will be.
The downside is that the last thing the jury would hear is the State’s rebuttal
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 21A-CR-2646 | May 6, 2022 Page 3 of 3
argument, which might have a greater impact on it because of “recency bias.”
But as the trial court did here, courts could lessen any impact by addressing
housekeeping matters after the State’s rebuttal argument. That said, because
Jury Rule 26(a) affords trial courts the option to give final instructions before or
after closing arguments, a court can do either without abusing its discretion. We
therefore affirm Reyes’s convictions.

Outcome: Affirmed.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: