Background
Shortly after Daniel Romero and his longtime girlfriend ended their relationship, Romero repeatedly called and texted her late at night. He then drove rapidly to her Warsaw home with one of her children in the vehicle. Witnesses said he carried a large wrench, smashed through the locked front door, swung the wrench at his former girlfriend, struck her friend with a handgun, and shot the friend in the shoulder. Romero left, changed his appearance, and later maintained that the gun discharged accidentally during a struggle.
A jury convicted Romero of Level 1 felony burglary resulting in serious bodily injury, and the Kosciusko Superior Court imposed a thirty-five-year sentence. During trial, after the former girlfriend’s child testified, a juror disclosed that she worked as a skills coach in the child’s school classroom. The juror had not recognized the child’s name during voir dire, had never spoken with her, and said the limited contact would not affect her evaluation of the testimony.
The trial court questioned the juror and allowed counsel to do the same. It denied Romero’s requests to remove her and declare a mistrial after finding no basis to doubt her impartiality. On appeal, Romero challenged those decisions, the evidence supporting the burglary conviction, and his sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B).
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. Judge Felix wrote that implied bias requires attention to the nature and extent of a juror’s relationship and the juror’s ability to remain impartial. The juror’s professional proximity to the child was attenuated: they were not related, had never conversed, and the juror worked with other children in the classroom. The defense’s suggestion that her role would make her unusually protective was speculation, while her assurance of impartiality gave the trial court a sound basis to keep her.
The delayed disclosure also did not warrant a new trial. An innocent failure to disclose information during voir dire can justify relief when the juror failed to answer a material question honestly and the correct answer would have supported a challenge for cause. Here, the juror did not recognize the witness’s name when the witness list was read, and the record did not establish bias or another valid cause challenge. Romero also failed to develop a supported argument that losing a possible peremptory strike required reversal, and he did not show gross misconduct or probable harm.
The evidence was sufficient for Level 1 felony burglary. Romero admitted taking a handgun, and witnesses placed both the gun and a roughly seventeen-inch wrench in his possession when he entered. The wrench qualified as a deadly weapon based on its size and his use of it. His angry calls and texts, rapid drive, armed approach, forced entry, immediate swing at his former girlfriend, threat to kill her companion, and shooting permitted the jury to infer that he entered intending to commit battery with a deadly weapon. The shooting and serious injury flowed from that burglary rather than an unrelated event.
The panel also declined to revise the thirty-five-year sentence. The offense involved a forced armed entry, violence in the presence of a child, serious injury, and conduct after the crime aimed at changing Romero’s appearance. Considering the nature of the offense and Romero’s character, he did not carry the burden of showing the sentence was inappropriate.
Key Takeaways
- A juror’s limited professional contact with a witness does not establish implied bias when the relationship is attenuated and the juror credibly commits to impartiality.
- An innocent delayed disclosure supports a new trial only when the omitted answer was material, supplied a valid cause challenge, and probably harmed the defendant.
- Intent at the moment of a burglary may be inferred from threats, arming, rapid travel, forced entry, and conduct immediately after entry.
- Whether an everyday object is a deadly weapon depends on the object’s characteristics, how it was used, and the surrounding circumstances.
Why It Matters
For Indiana trial lawyers, the opinion emphasizes the importance of building a precise record when a juror recognizes a witness after trial begins. Counsel should establish what was asked during voir dire, the exact nature of the contact, whether a cause challenge exists, whether peremptory challenges remain, and how the claimed prejudice could affect deliberations. General concern about a professional connection will not substitute for evidence of bias.
The burglary analysis also offers prosecutors and defense counsel a compact illustration of how circumstantial evidence proves intent at entry. The court considered the entire sequence rather than isolating the later shooting. In Rule 7(B) practice, the same aggravating sequence can make a substantial sentence difficult to revise even when the imposed term is below the maximum.