ILNews

COA affirms trial court in felony neglect case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed a conviction of Class A felony neglect, holding the appellant was unable to prove that he should have been charged with a lesser offense.

In David L. Johnson, Jr. v. State of Indiana, No. 82A01-1103-CR-130, David Johnson claimed the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his request for jury instructions on lesser-included offenses. He also claimed that the court erred in admitting statements he made to a social worker and that he was a victim of prosecutorial vindictiveness.

A.J. was born to Johnson and Lori Record in September 2008. In January 2009, Johnson attended a voluntary counseling session with a social worker, whom he told he was concerned that he might become angry and hurt A.J. Personnel noticed a bruise on A.J.’s cheek and called child protective services to investigate, and a case manager subsequently ordered A.J. to be seen by a doctor and to have X-rays taken. An initial review of the X-rays showed no injuries.

On Feb. 9, 2009, A.J. died. A coroner found evidence of multiple injuries, and upon reexamining A.J.’s initial X-rays, a radiologist saw a fracture in A.J.’s clavicle. On April 7, the state charged Johnson with Class A felony neglect of a dependent. In 2010, Johnson agreed to plead guilty to a Class B felony neglect charge, but the trial court rejected that plea.  

The COA held that in order for Johnson to prove that he should have been charged with a lesser offense, he would need to prove a serious evidentiary dispute on the element of serious bodily injury. The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s decision to refuse Johnson’s proffered instructions on the lesser-included Class C and Class D felony offenses.

The appeals court also held that the court did not err in admitting a statement from the social worker whom Johnson met with prior to A.J.’s death, citing Indiana Evidence Rules 401 and 402.

Finally, the COA rejected Johnson’s assertion that he was a victim of prosecutorial vindictiveness, stating that precedent dictates actual vindictiveness occurs when a prosecutor’s charging decision was motivated by a desire to punish the defendant for something the law plainly allowed him to do.

 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT