Evidence in the CourtroomEvidence in the CourtroomState of Indiana v. Josiah TurnerMarion County Criminal Court Division 1Prosecutor : Ms. AugustineCourt visit: November 13, 2007Summary:On November 13, 2007, I attended the sentencing hearing of State of Indiana v. Josiah Turner. At this sentencing hearing, there was not much evidence in this case because from the information given, Josiah Turner entered a guilty plea and accepted the charges. The charge instilled on Turner was domestic battery, a Class D felony. According to Indiana Code 35-42-2-1.3, “a person who knowingly or intentionally touches an individual who is or was a spouse of the other person, is or was living as if a spouse of the other person, or has a child in common with the other person; in a rude, insolent, or angry manner that results in bodily injury to the person commits domestic batter, a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class D felony if the person who committed the offense has a previous, unrelated conviction, committed the act in presence of a child under the age of 16, or other conditions such as duration of the relationship, frequency of contact, and if the two are raising children together.” In Josiah Turners case, he was charged with domestic battery because he has a child with the victim and also one on the way. Before this hearing, there was a pre-sentence investigation conducted in order to judge what kind of sentence would be best for Josiah Turner, the victim, and the child. Turner had already served 96 days in jail, and had been served a no contact order issued by the judge. Lakeisha Phoenix, the victim, took the stand and was asked by the prosecutor what she thought was best for Turner. She claimed that probation and counseling was the best thing for her and their child. She also was asked if she has had any problems with using Josiahs dad as a third person for the child to be given to so that the other can come get the child. She responded that she had no problem with it. She also noted that Josiah took $170 from a window sill on the night of the incident in which she wanted restitution. The judge proceeded, and stated that the job of the court is to sentence based on the evidence. He began to state the mitigating factors and the aggravating factors of the case. The mitigators being that Josiah Turner stepped forward and took responsibility for his actions and recognized he did wrong, as well as Turner having a family and recognizing his obligation to that child. Another mitigator was that Turner had not previous criminal history. On the other hand, the aggravators were that he plead guilty to the actions. He did what he said he did. The judge proceeded and sentenced Josiah Turner to three years suspended, one year of probation, 26 weeks of domestic violence counseling, and parenting classes. Also, Turner was told to pay restitution to Ms. Phoenix in the amount of $170, and pay the court costs of $161 and the additional standard probation fees.
Evidentiary Issues:A guilty plea entered by Turner eliminated the need for evidence proving him guilty. He was already presumed innocent and could have fought it out. Evidence would have had to prove him guilty. In this case, there were not any many evidentiary issues, however, it will be discussed as if there was a significant evidentiary issue. One issue that could have arisen is that Josiah Turners plea of guilty cannot be used as evidence under Federal Rule 410.
Turner had the choice of several pleas in his case. He could have chosen the other roads to travel by pleading not guilty, conditionally guilty, guilty but insane, or guilty but mentally ill. Turner could not have plead nolo contendere in this case because this plea is not used in Indiana. A conditional guilty plea is different from a standard guilty plea in that there is a condition attached to the plea that allows the case to be appealed later. “Appellate review of any specified ruling shall not be barred by the entry of the plea” (State of Maine v. Mark T. Smith). Josiah Turner entered a guilty plea, but not conditionally, so he will not be able to appeal. If he were to win the appeal, then the plea would be withdrawn.
The plea of “disorderly conduct” is a plea of “permitting intent” where the offender “willfully” causes the conduct, at the location or time of the intended act. The statute is a statute of limitation on a crime when it is found that:
“(a) It is the duty of a police officer to perform his duty in a reasonable manner to detect a crime occurring within the jurisdiction of the law in which he is employed as a law enforcement officer with regard to criminal investigations; or
“(b) This act or commission had been performed; or
“(c) A person is found committed on charges under this section by reason of false statements made to a police officer at an address unknown to him.
The “conduct” does not refer to “any act, practice, demonstration, activity or act which in any of the cases mentioned herein has the character… of a felony for a first or second degree felony or misdemeanor punishable on conviction as provided in s. 487.082, but whether it was performed to the end of any action or in any particular instance has not been determined.” and
“[T]he right, standing or any other right, real or personal, derived from an act, practice, illustration or activity in relation to which this State requires a valid privilege to refuse to recognize the law in which it existed, a right which has not been otherwise afforded to others, is to be recognized by the provisions of this part or statutes and statutes of the state constituting the state. Such privilege or privilege not to be denied by the act or act to which it relates is not a right of any other person to withhold or refuse recognition.” and
“An act or performance in violation of this part or statutes of the state constituting the state may be punished with fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment not more than four years, or both.”
Id., at 3, and cited by state at 12.
The common element of the “conduct” that distinguishes “confusing” from “disruptive” crime in Indiana are the absence of intent or actual malice causing the crime. The state constitution provides the following to all persons charged with a different crime than the one to whom it is directed:
“An act or performance of which the defendant reasonably knows or reasonably should know that the commission thereof is in violation of this part or statutes or that the conduct is criminal, and which there must be a reasonable reason for believing is to affect the safety or well-being of others or to make themselves more likely to be detected; or The act or performance of which the defendant reasonably knows or reasonably should know that the commission thereof is disorderly or abusive; or The act or performance of which the defendant reasonably knows or reasonably should know that the commission of disorderly conduct is lawful
The plea of “disorderly conduct” is a plea of “permitting intent” where the offender “willfully” causes the conduct, at the location or time of the intended act. The statute is a statute of limitation on a crime when it is found that:
“(a) It is the duty of a police officer to perform his duty in a reasonable manner to detect a crime occurring within the jurisdiction of the law in which he is employed as a law enforcement officer with regard to criminal investigations; or
“(b) This act or commission had been performed; or
“(c) A person is found committed on charges under this section by reason of false statements made to a police officer at an address unknown to him.
The “conduct” does not refer to “any act, practice, demonstration, activity or act which in any of the cases mentioned herein has the character… of a felony for a first or second degree felony or misdemeanor punishable on conviction as provided in s. 487.082, but whether it was performed to the end of any action or in any particular instance has not been determined.” and
“[T]he right, standing or any other right, real or personal, derived from an act, practice, illustration or activity in relation to which this State requires a valid privilege to refuse to recognize the law in which it existed, a right which has not been otherwise afforded to others, is to be recognized by the provisions of this part or statutes and statutes of the state constituting the state. Such privilege or privilege not to be denied by the act or act to which it relates is not a right of any other person to withhold or refuse recognition.” and
“An act or performance in violation of this part or statutes of the state constituting the state may be punished with fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment not more than four years, or both.”
Id., at 3, and cited by state at 12.
The common element of the “conduct” that distinguishes “confusing” from “disruptive” crime in Indiana are the absence of intent or actual malice causing the crime. The state constitution provides the following to all persons charged with a different crime than the one to whom it is directed:
“An act or performance of which the defendant reasonably knows or reasonably should know that the commission thereof is in violation of this part or statutes or that the conduct is criminal, and which there must be a reasonable reason for believing is to affect the safety or well-being of others or to make themselves more likely to be detected; or The act or performance of which the defendant reasonably knows or reasonably should know that the commission thereof is disorderly or abusive; or The act or performance of which the defendant reasonably knows or reasonably should know that the commission of disorderly conduct is lawful
As stated before, Federal Rule 410 could have played a big role in this case if the case went further. This rule talks about the inadmissibility of pleas, plea discussions, and related statements. It states “except as otherwise provided in this rule, evidence of the following