Couple's convictions in toddler's day care death overturned
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) - The state's highest court has overturned the convictions of central Indiana couple in a toddler's day-care death and ordered a retrial, citing juror misconduct.
An alternate juror's disruptive actions impacted the deliberations of the jury that convicted Daniel and Saundra Wahl of involuntary manslaughter in 2014, Indiana Supreme Court Justice Brent Dickson wrote in Tuesday's opinion.
The charges against the Wahls stemmed from the death of 21-month-old Anthony DiRienzo, who was found wedged at his neck between a wall and the vertical bar of a swinging metal baby gate at their home day care in Fishers. A coroner ruled the child's 2013 death accidental.
The Wahls were sentenced to two years in prison and ordered to pay $22,000 in restitution. Their convictions were upheld last year by the Indiana Court of Appeals.
But Dickson wrote that before the couple was sentenced, a juror emailed the Hamilton County trial judge describing the alternate juror's disruptive actions during deliberations. Based on that email, the Wahls filed a motion for a mistrial, but it was denied.
After sentencing, the Wahls filed a motion to correct an error supported by a sworn affidavit that alleged the alternate juror manipulated physical evidence, took over deliberations and began leading discussions. That motion was also denied by the trial court.
Dickson noted in his opinion that the alternate juror had "replayed a portion of the DVD that was in evidence, with ever-increasing volume, until all jurors were giving it their attention," The Indianapolis Star reported (http://indy.st/2542kaE ). He wrote that prosecutors argued that "the alternate juror's participation is harmless because the defendant 'fails to demonstrate that a fair trial was unlikely because of the alternate juror's misconduct.'"
"But once the presumption of prejudice arises, it is the State who must rebut the presumption by showing harmlessness," Dickson wrote. He added that the state "failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice" and therefore "the trial court must grant a new trial."
___
Information from: The Indianapolis Star, http://www.indystar.com