McAbee v. State

770 N.E.2d 802 (Ind. 2002) · Supreme Court of Indiana · June 28, 2002 · No. 38S00-0007-CR-442

Summary

The Supreme Court of Indiana affirmed Timothy J. McAbee's convictions for murder and Class B felony robbery and his aggregate 85-year sentence. The court held that unpreserved claims of prosecutorial misconduct did not constitute fundamental error, that the convictions did not violate Indiana's constitutional double-jeopardy protections, and that the sentence was not manifestly unreasonable.

Court
Supreme Court of Indiana
Writing for the Court
Sullivan; Boehm; Dickson; Rucker; Shepard
Jurisdiction
Indiana
Decision date
June 28, 2002
Docket number
38S00-0007-CR-442
Procedural posture
Appeal from conviction for murder and robbery
Standard of review
Manifestly unreasonable standard for sentencing; fundamental error for waived prosecutorial misconduct claims
Precedential value
published
Parties
Timothy J. McAbee v. State of Indiana
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

prosecutorial misconductdouble jeopardysentencingevidenceappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal procedureappellate practice

Questions Presented

  1. Whether prosecutorial misconduct regarding characterization of defense counsel's role denied defendant a fair trial
  2. Whether prosecutorial misconduct in repeatedly referring to defendant by his nickname 'Smack' denied defendant a fair trial
  3. Whether convictions for murder and Class B robbery violated Indiana's Double Jeopardy clause
  4. Whether the 85-year sentence was manifestly unreasonable

Holdings

  1. The prosecutor's comments did not constitute fundamental error because defendant failed to object at trial and the comments were not so violative of Bardonner and Coy principles as to constitute fundamental error.
  2. The prosecutor's use of defendant's nickname most likely violated Evidence Rule 404(b) but did not constitute fundamental error.
  3. The convictions did not violate Indiana's Double Jeopardy clause because the murder conviction and robbery enhancement were supported on separate grounds.
  4. The 85-year sentence was not manifestly unreasonable because the trial court properly weighed aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

Key quotations

Our role as prosecutors is to seek justice... The defense role is different... their role is to put us to our task, to poke holes in our case. Basically say and do anything to get him off. (804)
The murder was deliberate and methodical... That's cold blooded murder. (806)

Factual background

Defendant and Bobby Brummett planned to rob and kill Tony Thompson because of Thompson's access to large sums from drug transactions. After an initial aborted attempt when Thompson brought a friend, they acquired a second gun and lured Thompson to Brummett's house under the pretense of a cocaine sale. When Thompson arrived, Defendant shot him.

Procedural history

Defendant was convicted of murder and robbery. He appealed, challenging prosecutorial misconduct claims, double jeopardy, and sentencing.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…