ILNews

Panel criticizes late discovery introduction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Even while recognizing that the state’s practice of allowing late introduction of evidence basically rewards attorneys who don’t prepare for trial, the Indiana Court of Appeals looked beyond that practice to how the rules still protect a person’s right to a fair trial.

In a unanimous ruling today, the state’s intermediate appellate court issued its decision in Richard Childress, Jr. v. State of Indiana, No. 45A03-0911-CR-520. The appeal stems from a Lake Superior case in which a jury convicted Childress of two class B felonies and robbery and criminal confinement. The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence that the state didn’t disclose until the second day of trial.

At issue is how the prosecutor introduced a hooded sweatshirt, apparently worn at the time of the crime, into evidence for the first time on the second day of trial. At a bench conference, the trial court barred the state from including references to the sweatshirt in its case-in-chief but determined it could be admitted as evidence on rebuttal. Childress objected, but the court allowed the new evidence that ultimately resulted in his convictions.

The appellate panel made up of Judge Margret Robb, Patricia Riley, and Elaine Brown affirmed the convictions and determined the prosecutor’s late disclosure didn’t impair Childress’ right to a fair trial.

But most notably, the panel pointed out the nuances and intricacies in the litigation process allowing the kind of late disclosure that happened in this case.

The judges noted how the general discovery principles call for a court to strive for truth, fairness, and judicial efficiency, and that Indiana caselaw reinforces that a defendant must generally object at trial to the admission of discovery not timely disclosed. If that objection is overruled, then caselaw dictates the defendant should seek a continuance, and that continuance and evidentiary issue can be reviewed on appeal. State cases that have led to that holding are Berry v. State, 715 N.E. 2d 864, 866 (Ind. 1999) and Armstrong v. State, 499 N.E.2d 189, 191 (Ind. 1986).

“We agree with Childress’s implicit argument that this rule regrettably rewards attorneys who do not prepare by allowing admission of their untimely-produced discovery,” Judge Robb wrote for the majority. “Neither does this rule penalize the attorney who has failed to adequately investigate and prepare his or her own case or witnesses, preparation which would have led to an earlier detection of the evidence that should have been disclosed earlier. Nevertheless, we observe the wisdom of the rule as it contemplates and provides a remedy where the late disclosure has been intentional or impairs a defendant’s right to a fair trial. While the rule does not advance the practice of law toward promoting justice, it appears to allow sufficiently adequate protection of defendants’ rights to the extent courts genuinely consider whether late disclosure has impaired a defendant’s right to a fair trial. Further, we are not vested with the authority to amend this rule.”

In this case, the judges found that Childress could have requested a continuance or he could have more importantly adjusted his trial strategy going forward to counter the state’s late introduction of the sweatshirt. All of the “unfair circumstances” here could have been avoided, the panel found.

“Although we admonish the State for its failure to prepare its case to timely disclose the evidence, the late disclosure did not impair Childress’s right to a fair trial and we decline to reverse Childress’s convictions,” Judge Robb wrote.
 

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT