ILNews

Court can determine when defendant testifies

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Defendants have the constitutional right to testify at trial, but they do not have the right to dictate when they take the stand, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Feb. 25.

At issue in Kevin Book v. State of Indiana, No. 49A05-0707-CR-385, is whether the trial court violated Book's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights when he was allegedly compelled to make a decision whether to testify at a particular time during his trial.

Book was accused of smothering to death his girlfriend's 20-month-old daughter with his hand as his girlfriend slept. A jury found Book guilty of murder, and the trial court sentenced him to 60 years in prison, finding no mitigating factors.

Book appealed his conviction. He argued his constitutional rights were violated when the trial court allegedly tried to compel him to testify at a particular point in the trial. Book also believed the court shouldn't have allowed his 10-year-old cousin to testify at trial about an incident that took place between Book and his girlfriend's daughter several days before the murder. Book also appealed the sufficiency of evidence and his sentence.

During his trial, his defense counsel wanted to wait to put Book on the stand until after their only witness, Dr. Scott Wagner, could testify. The court decided Wagner would testify Saturday to accommodate his schedule and to complete the trial before Monday morning. The trial judge told the defense late Friday afternoon that if it had any more evidence besides Wagner, it had to be presented that day.

The trial court was trying to follow a schedule and complete the case in order to hear other cases on its docket. The trial judge told the defense it was up to them whether to rest after Wagner testified and also whether to call Book to the stand, but it could not guarantee there would be enough time to allow Book to testify after Wagner.

Because there was still available time Friday afternoon, the trial judge would not grant a continuance to prepare for Book's testimony, saying Book had a right to testify but did not have the right to testify when he wanted.

Book declined to testify Friday or after Wagner Saturday; the defense rested after Wagner's testimony.

On appeal, Book argued he was forced to testify when the trial court decided he should, not when Book's counsel believed was best. The decision of the trial court violated his constitutional right to determine when he would testify on his own behalf.

Book had plenty of time to prepare his defense, wrote Chief Judge John Baker, since discovery for the case began nearly 14 months prior. Book should have known what Wagner's testimony would include well before he testified, so his defense counsel's claim that Book's testimony hinged upon what Wagner said fails.

Book failed to show how the trial court's actions resulted in any harm or that the trial court prevented his counsel from full participation in the adversary fact-finding process, wrote Chief Judge Baker.

Book wanted his conviction reversed because of the testimony of his 10-year-old cousin was improperly permitted. His cousin testified that days before the murder, Book had told his girlfriend's daughter to shut up and threw a pillow at her.

Book's counsel did not object to the testimony at trial, so "the issue is waived," Chief Judge Baker wrote. Even if the issue wasn't waived, the trial court conveyed to the jury it was to consider the testimony only to understand the relationship between the young child and Book.

Finally, the Court of Appeals determined there was sufficient evidence to support Book's conviction and his 60-year sentence was appropriate.
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. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT