ILNews

Women who dodged orders to appear at trial properly declared unavailable

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a teen’s conviction of felony robbery, finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declaring two women unavailable for his trial and admitting their depositions at his trial.

Kevin Davis was charged with Class A felony robbery resulting in serious bodily injury after prosecutors alleged he and another man stopped Kevin Taylor on his bike, attempted to sell him marijuana, and then beat him with a brick when he refused. Taylor’s shoes, money, drugs and bicycle were stolen during the robbery.

Dorothy Davis, Kevin Davis’ biological aunt and adoptive mother, called police the day of the robbery and said a robbery had occurred in front of her house the night before. L.H., a cousin to Kevin Davis, told police that she was home at the time of the incident and identified Davis to the officer as one of the people who beat and robbed Taylor. Dorothy Davis allowed police to search her home, where police found Taylor’s shoes and a bottle of alcohol in the trash. A.D., Dorothy Davis’ daughter, had taken photos of the bloody scene on the cell phone, which she gave to police.

But when it came time for Kevin Davis’ trial, his mother and adopted sister refused to show up in court to testify, despite multiple requests and orders from the court. L.H. took the stand, but said she didn’t remember witnessing the robbery and didn’t remember anything associated with it. She denied identifying Kevin Davis as being involved.

The prosecution moved to admit Dorothy Davis and her daughter’s depositions because they made themselves unavailable for trial. The trial court admitted them over Kevin Davis’ objections and he was convicted as charged.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals agreed that the two women made themselves unavailable for trial so there was no abuse by the trial court to admit their depositions. Dorothy was held in contempt for not appearing, and still did not show up at trial when ordered. When police went to her home, the people inside refused to open the door.

The judges also affirmed the admittance of L.H.’s prior statements to police. As she testified at trial, she was subject to cross-examination concerning her out-of-court statements, and the trial court was free to believe or disbelieve her testimony and assess her credibility.

Kevin Davis also argued there wasn’t sufficient evidence to support his conviction because the testimony admitted of his mother, adopted sister and cousin should not have been admitted, as well as the photos A.D. gave to police.  But L.H.’s statements to police were properly admitted, Taylor made an in-court identification of Davis as the person who started the robbery, and Davis had Taylor’s blood on his shoes and clothing.

The case is Kevin Davis v. State of Indiana, 49A05-1310-CR-523.

 

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. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT