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. Paul Ogden doing a fine job of remembering his peer Gary Welsh with the post below and a call for an Indy gettogether to celebrate Gary .... http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2016/05/indiana-loses-citizen-journalist-giant.html Castaways of Indiana, unite!

  2. It's unfortunate that someone has attempted to hijack the comments to promote his own business. This is not an article discussing the means of preserving the record; no matter how it's accomplished, ethics and impartiality are paramount concerns. When a party to litigation contracts directly with a reporting firm, it creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Court reporters, attorneys and judges are officers of the court and must abide by court rules as well as state and federal laws. Parties to litigation have no such ethical responsibilities. Would we accept insurance companies contracting with judges? This practice effectively shifts costs to the party who can least afford it while reducing costs for the party with the most resources. The success of our justice system depends on equal access for all, not just for those who have the deepest pockets.

  3. As a licensed court reporter in California, I have to say that I'm sure that at some point we will be replaced by speech recognition. However, from what I've seen of it so far, it's a lot farther away than three years. It doesn't sound like Mr. Hubbard has ever sat in a courtroom or a deposition room where testimony is being given. Not all procedures are the same, and often they become quite heated with the ends of question and beginning of answers overlapping. The human mind can discern the words to a certain extent in those cases, but I doubt very much that a computer can yet. There is also the issue of very heavy accents and mumbling. People speak very fast nowadays, and in order to do that, they generally slur everything together, they drop or swallow words like "the" and "and." Voice recognition might be able to produce some form of a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if it produces an accurate or verbatim transcript, as is required in the legal world.

  4. Really enjoyed the profile. Congratulations to Craig on living the dream, and kudos to the pros who got involved to help him realize the vision.

  5. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

ADVERTISEMENT