Convictions overturned in Fishers day-care death

A Fishers couple sentenced in the 2013 death of a toddler at their home day care had their convictions overturned Tuesday by the Indiana Supreme Court because of juror misconduct.

In May 2014, a Hamilton Superior Court jury found Daniel and Saundra Wahl each guilty of involuntary manslaughter for the death of 21-month-old Anthony DiRienzo.

Court documents said Anthony was found wedged at his neck between a wall and the vertical bar of a swinging metal baby gate on June 20, 2013, at the Wahls' licensed home day care in the 13000 block of Hawkstone Drive. The child's death was deemed accidental by the Marion County coroner's office.

After being found guilty, the couple was sentenced to two years in prison and ordered to pay $22,000 in restitution. Their convictions were upheld by the Indiana Court of Appeals in June 2015.

But in a Indiana Supreme Court opinion handed down Tuesday, it was determined that the actions of an alternate juror impacted jury deliberations.

Justice Brent Dickson wrote that before the Wahls were sentenced, one of the jurors emailed the trial judge to describe the disruptive actions of the alternate juror. Based on the email, the Wahls filed a motion for a mistrial, which was denied.

After sentencing, the Wahls filed a motion to correct error supported by a sworn affidavit that alleged the alternate juror manipulated physical evidence, took over deliberations and began leading discussions. The juror also "replayed a portion of the DVD that was in evidence, with ever-increasing volume, until all jurors were giving it their attention," Dickson wrote.

The motion to correct error was also denied by the trial court.

"The State argues 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,'" Dickson wrote. "But once the presumption of prejudice arises, it is the State who must rebut the presumption by showing harmlessness ... the facts presented in the affidavit do not establish jury impartiality, and the State presents no other grounds to satisfy its burden to show that the jury remained impartial despite the presumed prejudice.

"The State has thus failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice, and when "the State does not rebut the presumption, the trial court must grant a new trial."

IndyStar reporter Marisa Kwiatkowski contributed to this story. Call IndyStar reporter Justin L. Mack at (317) 444-6138. Follow him on Twitter: @justinlmack.