ILNews

Women who dodged orders to appear at trial properly declared unavailable

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a teen’s conviction of felony robbery, finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declaring two women unavailable for his trial and admitting their depositions at his trial.

Kevin Davis was charged with Class A felony robbery resulting in serious bodily injury after prosecutors alleged he and another man stopped Kevin Taylor on his bike, attempted to sell him marijuana, and then beat him with a brick when he refused. Taylor’s shoes, money, drugs and bicycle were stolen during the robbery.

Dorothy Davis, Kevin Davis’ biological aunt and adoptive mother, called police the day of the robbery and said a robbery had occurred in front of her house the night before. L.H., a cousin to Kevin Davis, told police that she was home at the time of the incident and identified Davis to the officer as one of the people who beat and robbed Taylor. Dorothy Davis allowed police to search her home, where police found Taylor’s shoes and a bottle of alcohol in the trash. A.D., Dorothy Davis’ daughter, had taken photos of the bloody scene on the cell phone, which she gave to police.

But when it came time for Kevin Davis’ trial, his mother and adopted sister refused to show up in court to testify, despite multiple requests and orders from the court. L.H. took the stand, but said she didn’t remember witnessing the robbery and didn’t remember anything associated with it. She denied identifying Kevin Davis as being involved.

The prosecution moved to admit Dorothy Davis and her daughter’s depositions because they made themselves unavailable for trial. The trial court admitted them over Kevin Davis’ objections and he was convicted as charged.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals agreed that the two women made themselves unavailable for trial so there was no abuse by the trial court to admit their depositions. Dorothy was held in contempt for not appearing, and still did not show up at trial when ordered. When police went to her home, the people inside refused to open the door.

The judges also affirmed the admittance of L.H.’s prior statements to police. As she testified at trial, she was subject to cross-examination concerning her out-of-court statements, and the trial court was free to believe or disbelieve her testimony and assess her credibility.

Kevin Davis also argued there wasn’t sufficient evidence to support his conviction because the testimony admitted of his mother, adopted sister and cousin should not have been admitted, as well as the photos A.D. gave to police.  But L.H.’s statements to police were properly admitted, Taylor made an in-court identification of Davis as the person who started the robbery, and Davis had Taylor’s blood on his shoes and clothing.

The case is Kevin Davis v. State of Indiana, 49A05-1310-CR-523.

 

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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT