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.



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues