Brett Zagorac v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: MARK A. BATES Schererville, Indiana GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana GEORGE P. SHERMAN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana FILED Jan 27 2012, 9:22 am IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA BRETT ZAGORAC, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CLERK of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court No. 64A03-1011-CR-589 APPEAL FROM THE PORTER SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Mary R. Harper, Judge Cause No. 64D05-1002-FC-1706 January 27, 2012 MEMORANDUM DECISION ON REHEARING NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY, Judge Brett Zagorac petitions for rehearing of our decision affirming his conviction of Class B misdemeanor battery.1 Therein, we stated: Zagorac also alleges his conviction should be reversed because the trial court admitted evidence that was inadmissible due to the way it was obtained. We need not address that claim, however, because the evidence at issue was merely cumulative of other evidence properly admitted, namely the victim s testimony. See Purvis v. State, 829 N.E.2d 572, 585 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (erroneous admission of evidence is harmless if it is cumulative of other evidence), trans. denied. Zagorac v. State, 64A03-1011-CR-589, slip op. (Ind. Ct. App. September 28, 2011). On rehearing, Zagorac argues we improperly neglect[ed] to address and decide appellant s claim that the trial court committed reversible error by allowing the jury to hear appellant s statements made as a result of the illegal interrogation by police[.] (Rehearing Br. of Appellant at 2.) In support thereof, Zagorac asserts the victim N.A. s testimony was not cumulative of all the statements or actions made by the appellant which [sic] were recounted by the police over his objection. (Id.) (emphasis in original). We grant rehearing to clarify our conclusion the police testimony regarding the alleged illegal interrogation (id.) was cumulative and therefore harmless. N.A. s mother, Kelly, asked her brother-in-law, Samuel, a police officer, to run the license plate number for the car Zagorac drove to her house for tutoring sessions. Zagorac had been using the name B.J. Wilhelm, but the BMV report indicated the car belonged to Brett Zagorac. On the day Zagorac alleges police engaged in an illegal interrogation, (id.), 1 Ind. Code ยง 35-42-2-1. 2 Samuel and N.A. s father confronted Zagorac regarding the discrepancy in the name he used in his Craigslist ad and the name under which his car was registered. Kelly s testimony about that conversation was: [State]: [Kelly]: [State]: [Kelly]: [State]: [Kelly]: [State]: [Kelly]: [State]: [Kelly]: [State]: [Kelly]: [State]: [Kelly]: [State]: [Kelly]: [Kelly], were you ever present downstairs when [Zagorac] identified himself? Yes, I believe so. Okay. What did he say? Well, actually I believe it took my brother-in-law asking because he stuck with I m B.J. Wilhelm, B.J. Wilhelm. And I believe my brother-in-law was like, are you sure it s not Brett Zagorac. And what did he say? It wasn t so much what he said as the way he looked. How did he look? Terrified. Did he eventually respond to who he was? Yes. What did he say? He said he was. ... At any point did you confront [Zagorac] about who he was? I don t believe I confronted him about who he was. I just asked him why he lied to me. Okay. What do mean [sic] lied to you? Well, why he lied about his why he lied about his name. (Tr. at 181-82.) Kelly testified Samuel then told her to call the police, and N.A. s father exited the basement at that time. The alleged illegal interrogation (Rehearing Br. of Appellant at 2) of which Zagorac complains did not occur until after other police officers arrived, indicating the information regarding Zagorac s true identity was elicited not only during the alleged illegal interrogation (id.) but also before that time, during a conversation between Samuel, N.A. s father, and Zagorac. 3 Therefore, the information regarding Zagorac s identity, which was the crux of the alleged illegal interrogation (id.) was cumulative not only of N.A. s testimony, but also of his mother s testimony. Because the information gleaned from the police involvement in this case was cumulative of other testimony as cited specifically in this rehearing opinion, we reaffirm that any possible error was harmless. See Purvis v. State, 829 N.E.2d 572, 585 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (erroneous admission of evidence is harmless if it is cumulative of other evidence), trans. denied. NAJAM, J., concurs. RILEY, J., would deny Petition for Rehearing. 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
