Background
Ronald E. Howell was convicted after a jury trial in White County of six counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and one count of attempted predatory criminal sexual assault of a child. The victim, Howell’s stepdaughter, testified that Howell sexually abused her repeatedly when she was between five and nine years old. The court sentenced Howell to 54 years’ imprisonment, followed by mandatory supervised release.
During trial, the court learned that a juror had discussed her feelings about the case with people outside the courtroom. With agreement from both parties, the court excused that juror and seated an alternate. Howell later challenged the removal, the prosecutor’s opening and closing comments about his police interview, and his trial counsel’s decisions not to object to certain evidence or the juror’s removal.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed. Howell could not obtain review of the juror-removal claim because his lawyer expressly agreed to the removal, making any error invited. His lawyer later testified that agreeing to remove the juror was a strategic choice intended to avoid emphasizing potentially harmful outside comments.
The court also held that the prosecutor permissibly commented on Howell’s demeanor, omissions, and statements during a voluntary post-Miranda police interview. The comments did not penalize Howell for remaining silent or shift the burden of proof; they asked the jury to assess conflicting testimony. Finally, counsel’s decisions concerning the interview recording, Facebook photograph, and juror removal were reasonable strategic choices and did not establish deficient performance under Strickland.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant who agrees to a trial court’s action generally cannot seek plain-error review of that action on appeal.
- Prosecutors may comment on statements, omissions, and demeanor during a voluntary post-Miranda interview.
- Strategic decisions about objections and juror issues ordinarily do not amount to ineffective assistance.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the consequences of defense counsel’s affirmative agreement to a trial ruling: invited error can bar both ordinary and plain-error review. It also distinguishes permissible argument about a defendant’s voluntary police statements from impermissible use of post-arrest silence.