ILNews

Court upholds man’s conviction for confining wife’s sister

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Although a prosecutor made an inappropriate comment during a man’s trial for criminal confinement, that comment had little persuasive effect on the jury, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Friday. The judges affirmed Jonathan Stephens’ conviction of Class C felony criminal confinement.

Prosecutors charged Stephens following an incident involving his wife, Brittany, and her sister Hannah Dickerhoff. Brittany Stephens and Dickerhoff were at the YMCA when Jonathan Stephens showed up and began arguing with his wife. At one point, he dragged Brittany to his car, which led Dickerhoff to jump in, fearing for her sister. Jonathan Stephens refused to stop the car, but eventually he stopped and pushed Dickerhoff out, causing injury to her hand.

Jonathan Stephens faced charges involving his sister-in-law and his wife, but Brittany Stephens said during his trial that she entered his car voluntarily and did not ask to be let out. Jonathan Stephens was convicted only related to Dickerhoff. He received eight years on a criminal confinement conviction, one year on a battery conviction and eight years for being a habitual offender.

In Jonathan Stephens v. State of Indiana, 85A02-1306-CR-518, Stephens claimed that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to support his criminal confinement conviction, that he received ineffective assistance from his trial attorney, and the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing arguments.

“The evidence shows that Dickerhoff entered Stephens’s vehicle after witnessing him drag Brittany to his vehicle. Stephens left the YMCA and began driving around the Wabash area. Stephens ignored Dickerhoff’s repeated pleas to let her out of the car. Eventually, Stephens even drove to another city and did not stop to let Dickerhoff out of the vehicle. When Dickerhoff called 911, Stephens still did not stop the car to let her go. Instead, he later stopped, grabbed Dickerhoff’s phone, and removed its battery. In this case, there is ample evidence from which a jury could conclude that Stephen criminally confined Dickerhoff,” Judge Rudolph Pyle III wrote.

Jonathan Stephens failed to show any prejudice was caused by his attorney’s failure to object to the line of questioning regarding a no-contact order between Jonathan and Brittany Stephens. And the judges held that most of the prosecutor’s comments were not improper. There was one statement that implied that if the jury convicted Jonathan Stephens, it would be a community service. But because he didn’t object during trial, he had to prove fundamental error, which he did not. The totality of the circumstances showed the improper comments had little persuasive effect on the jury, Pyle wrote. The jury’s verdict is supported by the evidence.

The COA remanded with the trial court to correct the sentencing order, abstract of judgment and chronological case summary to reflect the eight-year habitual offender enhancement serves as an enhancement to the Class C felony criminal confinement conviction.
 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT