ILNews

No error in admitting deposition testimony of witness

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals found the trial court did not err in admitting the deposition testimony of a witness in a murder case who refused to testify at trial and whom the defendant had a chance to examine at the deposition.

Channing Gordon was in an apartment building when he saw Halston Thomas enter with a gun. Gordon ran into an apartment and heard multiple gunshots. Andre Drake died from his injuries. Gordon was called to testify but refused to do so. The trial court then granted the state’s request to read Gordon’s deposition testimony into evidence. Thomas was convicted of murder.

In Halston Thomas v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-1109-CR-830, Thomas argued that this deprived him of his constitutional right to confront Gordon because he didn’t have an adequate opportunity to confront and cross-examine him. He claimed the deposition was discovery and not testimonial. The appellate judges cited Howard v. State, 853 N.E.2d 461 (Ind. 2006), in their decision to uphold the murder conviction.

Thomas claimed he didn’t have the ability to confront Gordon at his deposition because the scope of the defense counsel’s questioning of Gordon was strictly limited by Gordon’s counsel. His attorney clearly intended to not question Gordon in-depth at the time, but he did have the opportunity to do so, wrote Judge Ezra Friedlander.

The state established that Gordon was unavailable to testify at trial and that Thomas had an opportunity to cross-examine Gordon at the deposition, which was testimonial in nature, the judges ruled. Even if the judges were to assume that the requirements of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68 (2004), weren’t met, any error in admitting the deposition was harmless.

 

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT