Ronnie C. Smith 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. Jul 25 2008, 10:08 am ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: LEANNA WEISSMANN Lawrenceburg, Indiana STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana ELLEN H. MEILAENDER Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA RONNIE C. SMITH, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 15A01-0707-CR-336 APPEAL FROM THE DEARBORN CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable James Humphrey, Judge Cause No. 15C01-0611-FB-44 July 25, 2008 MEMORANDUM DECISION ON REHEARING NOT FOR PUBLICATION BAKER, Chief Judge Appellant-defendant Ronnie C. Smith petitions for rehearing following our memorandum decision in Smith v. State, No. 15A01-0707-CR-336 (Ind. Ct. App. April 14, 2008), where we affirmed his conviction for Conspiracy to Manufacture Methamphetamine,1 a class B felony. In the original appeal, Smith argued that he was entitled to a reversal of his conviction because the prosecutor committed misconduct when he read a poem entitled My Name is Meth to the jury during voir dire. The prosecutor also questioned some of the State s witnesses regarding the dangers of methamphetamine and commented during closing argument about the use and dangers of methamphetamine in the community. We determined that Smith waived the issue of prosecutorial misconduct because he failed to: (1) properly object at trial; (2) request an admonishment; or (3) move for a mistrial. Slip op. at 9. We reaffirm our holding, but grant rehearing for the limited purpose of addressing Smith s claim that the prosecutor s conduct amounted to fundamental error. We note that in a companion case involving one of Smith s codefendants, a different panel of this court in Gregory v. State, 885 N.E.2d 697 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) addressed the nearly identical issue that Smith now presents. Although the defendant in Gregory properly preserved the allegation of prosecutorial misconduct on appeal, it was determined that the reading of the poem was not misconduct. Id. at 707 (Kirsch, J., concurring in result). Moreover, the Gregory court concluded that the questions posed to the State s witnesses regarding the dangers of methamphetamine did not amount to 1 Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.1(a)(1)(a); Ind. Code § 35-41-2-4. 2 misconduct, let alone fundamental error. Id. at 707. Finally, the Gregory court determined that the prosecutor s comments made during closing argument did not constitute misconduct because the statements were nothing more than the prosecutor s opinion that methamphetamine has disastrous effects on the community. Id. at 708. We likewise conclude in this case that that the prosecutor s comments and questions posed to the State s witnesses did not result in error much less fundamental error. As a result, although we grant Smith s petition for rehearing, we affirm our original opinion in all respects. RILEY, J., and ROBB, J., concur. 3
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.
