ILNews

Previous testimony allowed in murder trial

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A witness’s testimony from a man’s murder trial and the deposition testimony of another unavailable witness were correctly allowed at the man’s second murder trial, the Indiana Court of Appeals held Tuesday.

In Nathan S. Berkman v. State of Indiana, 45A04-1111-CR-583, Nathan Berkman appealed his conviction and sentence for felony murder, raising four issues including whether the trial court abused its discretion: in denying his motion to dismiss, which was made on the basis that the instant charge was barred by double jeopardy prohibitions; in denying his mistrial motion, which was made on the basis that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting certain testimony from his first trial; and in admitting certain deposition testimony. Berkman also appealed his 60-year executed sentence.

Berkman slit the throat of Olen Hawkins in his car and stole drugs and money from Hawkins. He drove Hawkins’ car home with the body in it and eventually disposed of the body a few days later by setting the car on fire.

He was charged with murder and felony murder. He was acquitted of the murder charge. The jury didn’t reach a verdict on the felony murder count. At his second trial for felony murder, his girlfriend, Arlene Timmerman, told the judge while on the stand she might be having a migraine and didn’t feel well. The judge declared her unavailable to testify and admitted her testimony from the first trial. The judge also allowed the deposition testimony of Paul Barraza into evidence. Barraza was also considered unavailable as the state tried to locate him but was unsuccessful. He was believed to be in Florida avoiding an open arrest warrant in Lake County.

The Court of Appeals ruled the state was not barred by collateral estoppel from trying Berkman again for felony murder. The admission of Timmerman’s previous testimony was not an abuse of discretion as the trial court correctly found she was unavailable, the judges held. The trial judge was able to observe Timmerman’s behavior and knew she had been previously hospitalized. Berkman was able to cross-examine her during Timmerman’s prior testimony, so his right to confront the witness was not violated, Judge Cale Bradford wrote.

The trial court also did not abuse its discretion in admitting Barraza’s deposition testimony, the court held. The state made a reasonable, good-faith effort to secure Barraza’s presence at trial, but he had apparently fled to avoid an arrest warrant, Bradford continued. Efforts to reach him at his previous address and phone number did not pan out.  

Berkman’s confrontation rights were not violated by admitting the deposition testimony as he had the opportunity to ask Barraza questions to undermine his testimony or any other questions he wanted answered. The appellate court also declined to adopt the Florida rule that the use of discovery depositions during a criminal trial does not satisfy constitutional confrontation requirements.

The judges also found Berkman’s sentence to be appropriate given the nature of the offense and his character.  

 

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. How do you go about each day with out having resentment or ill will towards the evil that has done this to you? Is it your faith that keeps you going and knowing that someday they will have to answer to God? At church our pastor talked about forgiveness and how Jesus forgave our sins and we should too. Its very hard knowing that we do the right thing in this world, and those that are liars, thieves, are continued in power and continue on doing their jobs, while you are banished from something that you have every right to do with out being penalized.

  2. From my post below .... I cut and pasted in error: http://www.theindianalawyer.com/human-trafficking-rising-in-indiana/PARAMS/article/42468

  3. Your prayers must account for some of the wind beneath my wings. That and this: His yoke is easy, His burden light. OK, now to bring this comment thread 100% back to the topic at hand. From my secret files, never before published, a letter that Commission head Myra Selby deemed interesting, but ..... This Hail Mary was ignored by the Commission, and then cited by the Indiana bar examiners to justify the need for a lifetime banishment from the Indiana Supreme Court. I tender it as a study in anti white male anti Christian antipathy in the Indiana court system. Focused upon the Race (ie not white) and Gender (ie not male) and not religious Commission for "fairness." Uncle Karl, eat your heart out: https://www.scribd.com/document/340472424/Race-gender-request-24128-1 ... https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BznfHUztK5eTUGlxbmRvMWJsaHhLcGFuaE5KNHZWVjk3eHRn/view?usp=sharing

  4. What a disgrace of Judicial Proceedings. Can complain and write comments forever but someone needs to show the mother how to fight back before he turns this little girl against her.

  5. The truth comes out Issac Law Firm for Men helped Montgomery to get custody.Should read the lies he told them.How much was paid to the judges?

ADVERTISEMENT