WILSON v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Melissa Jean Wilson appeals her conviction by jury of Level 6 felony theft, which arose from her unauthorized possession of her mother's minivan. Wilson argues the trial court should have granted a mistrial because the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during closing arguments. Concluding the trial court did not err in denying Wilson's motion for mistrial, we affirm.¹

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In July 2023, Wilson and her then-boyfriend lived with Wilson's mother, seventy-three-year-old Janice Kent, at Kent's home in South Bend. There was discord in the household: Wilson's boyfriend was disruptive, and Wilson was “pushy,” urging Kent to put Wilson's name on the titles to her minivan and house so that Wilson would automatically receive them when Kent died. Tr. Vol. II, p. 20. Kent refused Wilson's demands. Kent kept her important papers, including the minivan's title, in a safe. Wilson knew the combination.

[3] Kent obtained a court order directing Wilson and her boyfriend to move out. Wilson told her mother she would comply, but she asked to borrow the minivan to transport her property. Kent agreed, but she assumed she would be driving the minivan, and Wilson would merely load and unload it.

[4] After Wilson loaded the minivan, she asked Kent for some coffee. Kent went into her house to make coffee, but when she returned, Wilson and the minivan were gone.

[5] Several days later, Wilson sent Kent several text messages. In one of them, Wilson stated: “The van is mine. Thank you for the birthday present [sic] I'm sorry we couldn't share the house until you passed. I have registered it in my name.” Tr. Vol. III, p. 8. Wilson included a photograph of an Indiana certificate of vehicle registration purporting to show she owned the minivan. Wilson also texted Kent, “Don't bother calling the cops [sic] it's legally mine now[.]” Id. at 9.

[6] Kent never told Wilson the minivan was a birthday present, and she never gave Wilson permission to transfer the registration to Wilson's name. Kent looked in her safe for her minivan's title, but it was gone. Kent called the police and reported Wilson's unauthorized use of her minivan. An officer took her information and opened a case.

[7] On July 24, 2023, a different officer saw Wilson driving the minivan and conducted a traffic stop. Wilson claimed she legally received the minivan from Kent. During their conversation, Wilson produced a purported bill of sale, which stated, “I Janice Kent give to Melissa Wilson this vehicle as a Birthday Gift. No sales price.” Id. at 15. Kent later denied writing or signing that document, saying it was not her handwriting. The officer impounded the van and notified the detective who was assigned to the case.

[8] Next, Wilson called the detective and agreed to speak with him at the police station. During their conversation, Wilson again produced the purported bill of sale but did not show the detective a title document. The detective compared the handwriting on the bill of sale with another receipt Kent had written, and he concluded the handwriting did not match.

[9] The State charged Wilson with fraud and theft, both Level 6 felonies. The case was tried by jury. The State presented testimony from Kent, the detective, and the officer who had stopped the minivan. Wilson testified in her own defense.

[10] During closing arguments, Wilson pointed out an inconsistency in the State's witnesses’ testimonies, noting that Kent had said the detective was the first officer on the scene, whereas the detective denied being the first officer to speak with her. Wilson then said, “In fact, the first officer on the scene didn't even testify today.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 121. Wilson also told the jury that the State “didn't call that officer to talk to you.” Id. at 123. Wilson also noted the State had not produced a title for the minivan.

[11] On rebuttal closing argument, the prosecutor began by stating:

Defense Counsel is asking you to assume a lot of things that's [sic] not before this court, but the Defense has the subpoena power. They could have brought that officer in if there had been anything that would help their case, same goes for the title; but they didn't.

Id. at 127-28.

[12] Wilson objected. During a bench conference, she claimed the State was “burden shifting” and moved for a mistrial. Id. at 128. The trial court denied Wilson's motion and admonished the jury as follows: “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant is under no obligation to prove anything. The burden rests entirely upon the State to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 128. The trial court restated these points in the final jury instructions. Appellant's App. Vol. II, p. 122.

[13] The jury found Wilson guilty as charged. The court, citing double jeopardy concerns, entered a judgment of conviction on only the auto theft charge and sentenced Wilson accordingly. This appeal followed.

Discussion and Decision

[14] Wilson argues the trial court erred in denying her a mistrial, claiming the prosecutor wrongly shifted the burden of proof to her. The denial of a motion for mistrial rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we will reverse the court only for an abuse of that discretion. Gibbs v. State, 214 N.E.3d 351, 358 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023). A trial court abuses its discretion where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the court has misinterpreted or misapplied the law. State v. T.S., 179 N.E.3d 516, 519 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied. “The grant of a motion for mistrial is an extreme remedy that is warranted only when less severe remedies will not satisfactorily correct the error.” Francis v. State, 758 N.E.2d 528, 532 (Ind. 2001).

[15] “In reviewing a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, we first determine whether misconduct occurred, and then, if there was misconduct, whether under all of the circumstances the misconduct placed the defendant in a position of grave peril to which [she] otherwise would not have been subjected.” Fouts v. State, 207 N.E.3d 1257, 1267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), modified in part on reh'g, 210 N.E.3d 902 (2023), trans. denied. “[M]isconduct is measured by reference to case law and the Rules of Professional Conduct.” Id. “The gravity of peril is measured by the probable persuasive effect of the misconduct on the jury's decision rather than the degree of impropriety of the conduct.” Gridley v. State, 121 N.E.3d 1071, 1078 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied.

[16] Here, the prosecutor made the challenged remarks while responding to Wilson's argument that the State should have presented the title to the minivan and testimony from the officer who initially spoke with Kent. The State was entitled to respond to Wilson's accusation that the prosecutor had overlooked or was hiding evidence. See Burkins v. State, 219 N.E.3d 735,746-47 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (prosecutor did not commit misconduct by referring to toxicology report during rebuttal closing argument, although report had not been admitted into evidence; defendant had claimed during closing that prosecutor was hiding report), trans. denied.

[17] In any event, “an admonishment is presumed to cure any error.” Glover v. State, 179 N.E.3d 526, 534 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied. After Wilson objected to the prosecutor's statements, the trial court admonished the jury, stating: (1) Wilson was not obligated to prove anything; and (2) the State bore the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court repeated these points in the final instructions.

[18] Wilson argues the admonishment was insufficient because the evidence at trial presented “a close call” for the jury. Appellant's Br. p. 8. We disagree. Although Wilson denied stealing the minivan from her mother and claimed Kent had memory problems, other evidence presented at trial establishes the elements of the theft charge. The evidence includes: (1) Kent's testimony about the theft; (2) Kent's denial of memory problems; (3) text messages from Wilson to Kent; (4) Kent's denial that she had filled out the purported bill of sale; (5) and the detective's testimony that Kent's handwriting did not match the writing on the bill of sale. The overall strength of the State's case demonstrates that Wilson was not placed in grave peril by the prosecutor's remarks. See Huls v. State, 971 N.E.2d 739, 744 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (prosecutor's comment did not place defendant in grave peril; evidence against defendant was strong and comment did not have probable persuasive effect on jury), trans. denied. Wilson failed to demonstrate prosecutorial misconduct, and as a result, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting her motion for the extreme remedy of mistrial.

Conclusion

[19] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

[20] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   At trial, Wilson testified she had changed her last name to Dollahan after getting married in February 2024. We continue to refer to her as Wilson because she uses that name in her Appellant's Brief.

Shepard, Senior Judge.

Weissmann, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.