ILNews

Man knowingly waived right to jury trial on all charges

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals rejected a defendant’s argument that he only agreed to a bench trial on one of the seven charges he faced following a violent altercation with his girlfriend.

Michael Johnson punched, kicked, and hit his girlfriend, I.B., after she came home in the early morning hours after being gone all night. He accused her of cheating on him, according to the court record. After beating her, he told her to “turn around” because he wanted to have sex. I.B. said she complied because she was afraid and didn’t want to get beaten again.

Johnson was charged with and convicted of Class B felonies criminal confinement and rape; Class C felony battery; Class D felonies intimidation and strangulation; and Class A misdemeanor interfering with the reporting of a crime.

He argued that he did not knowingly waive his right to a jury trial on all of his charges, the state abused its discretion in denying Johnson the right to cross-examine I.B. about past sexual conduct, and that the state didn’t prove he committed rape and intimidation.

Johnson’s written waiver only listed one count of Class B felony criminal confinement, which was the lead, most serious charge.

“It seems unlikely that Johnson would waive his right to a jury trial on his most serious charge and not on the rest,” Judge Rudolph Pyle III wrote in Michael Johnson v. State of Indiana, 49A02-1307-CR-562.  

“Second, all of Johnson’s charges were a part of the same cause, and provision number 4 of the waiver states, ‘I hereby give up my constitutional rights to a trial by jury and ask that the case be tried by the Court without a jury.’ Under the plain language of this provision, Johnson agreed to waive his right to a jury trial of the entire case, not merely Class B felony criminal confinement. Third, Johnson’s attorney signed the waiver, which indicates that Johnson acted on the advice and information of his legal counsel when filing his waiver.”

Johnson also failed to object to being tried on all of his charges during his bench trial.

The judges also ruled Johnson was precluded from introducing evidence of I.B.’s prior sexual conduct at trial because he did not follow Evidence Rule 412’s procedural requirements. As such, he waived this issue on appeal. The judges also found the state provided sufficient evidence to support his convictions.

Judge Cale Bradford concurred in result in a separate opinion, noting that he would find Johnson waived any argument concerning I.B.’s testimony because he made no offer of proof as to what her testimony would have been.

 

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. IF the Right to Vote is indeed a Right, then it is a RIGHT. That is the same for ALL eligible and properly registered voters. And this is, being able to cast one's vote - until the minute before the polls close in one's assigned precinct. NOT days before by absentee ballot, and NOT 9 miles from one's house (where it might be a burden to get to in time). I personally wait until the last minute to get in line. Because you never know what happens. THAT is my right, and that is Mr. Valenti's. If it is truly so horrible to let him on school grounds (exactly how many children are harmed by those required to register, on school grounds, on election day - seriously!), then move the polling place to a different location. For ALL voters in that precinct. Problem solved.

  2. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  3. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  4. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  5. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

ADVERTISEMENT