ILNews

Court can determine when defendant testifies

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Defendants have the constitutional right to testify at trial, but they do not have the right to dictate when they take the stand, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Feb. 25.

At issue in Kevin Book v. State of Indiana, No. 49A05-0707-CR-385, is whether the trial court violated Book's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights when he was allegedly compelled to make a decision whether to testify at a particular time during his trial.

Book was accused of smothering to death his girlfriend's 20-month-old daughter with his hand as his girlfriend slept. A jury found Book guilty of murder, and the trial court sentenced him to 60 years in prison, finding no mitigating factors.

Book appealed his conviction. He argued his constitutional rights were violated when the trial court allegedly tried to compel him to testify at a particular point in the trial. Book also believed the court shouldn't have allowed his 10-year-old cousin to testify at trial about an incident that took place between Book and his girlfriend's daughter several days before the murder. Book also appealed the sufficiency of evidence and his sentence.

During his trial, his defense counsel wanted to wait to put Book on the stand until after their only witness, Dr. Scott Wagner, could testify. The court decided Wagner would testify Saturday to accommodate his schedule and to complete the trial before Monday morning. The trial judge told the defense late Friday afternoon that if it had any more evidence besides Wagner, it had to be presented that day.

The trial court was trying to follow a schedule and complete the case in order to hear other cases on its docket. The trial judge told the defense it was up to them whether to rest after Wagner testified and also whether to call Book to the stand, but it could not guarantee there would be enough time to allow Book to testify after Wagner.

Because there was still available time Friday afternoon, the trial judge would not grant a continuance to prepare for Book's testimony, saying Book had a right to testify but did not have the right to testify when he wanted.

Book declined to testify Friday or after Wagner Saturday; the defense rested after Wagner's testimony.

On appeal, Book argued he was forced to testify when the trial court decided he should, not when Book's counsel believed was best. The decision of the trial court violated his constitutional right to determine when he would testify on his own behalf.

Book had plenty of time to prepare his defense, wrote Chief Judge John Baker, since discovery for the case began nearly 14 months prior. Book should have known what Wagner's testimony would include well before he testified, so his defense counsel's claim that Book's testimony hinged upon what Wagner said fails.

Book failed to show how the trial court's actions resulted in any harm or that the trial court prevented his counsel from full participation in the adversary fact-finding process, wrote Chief Judge Baker.

Book wanted his conviction reversed because of the testimony of his 10-year-old cousin was improperly permitted. His cousin testified that days before the murder, Book had told his girlfriend's daughter to shut up and threw a pillow at her.

Book's counsel did not object to the testimony at trial, so "the issue is waived," Chief Judge Baker wrote. Even if the issue wasn't waived, the trial court conveyed to the jury it was to consider the testimony only to understand the relationship between the young child and Book.

Finally, the Court of Appeals determined there was sufficient evidence to support Book's conviction and his 60-year sentence was appropriate.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT