Flowers v. State
| Decision Date | 28 August 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 79S02-9508-CR-995,79S02-9508-CR-995 |
| Citation | 654 N.E.2d 1124 |
| Parties | Danny FLOWERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Jimmie D. Bowlin, Jr., Crawfordsville, for appellant.
Pamela Carter, Attorney General, Louis E. Ransdell, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, for appellee.
This case comes to us on petition to transfer. Ind.Appellate Rule 11(B). In a memorandum decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed appellant Danny Flowers's convictions and sentence. Flowers v. State (1994), Ind.App., 635 N.E.2d 1159. Appellant raises multiple issues, but we decide only one: whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant's motion for continuance, where that continuance was required in order for the defense to obtain the testimony of an essential expert witness on the genetic testing performed on appellant's blood sample.
On May 17, 1991, appellant allegedly raped and robbed H.B. Police initially suspected Appellant's brother, Robert, and obtained a sample of his blood under the authority of a search warrant. The tests on that sample indicated that Robert was not the perpetrator of the crimes, but that it was likely that a close relative of his was. Police acted on that and other information to support the issuance of an arrest warrant for appellant. The police later obtained an order from the court authorizing them to have a hospital draw appellant's blood for further genetic testing. Those tests indicated a match between appellant's DNA and that of the attacker.
On November 9, 1992, Professor Randell T. Libby, Appellant's DNA expert, faxed the defense to inform them that he was withdrawing from the case because he had been prevented from obtaining necessary materials. Appellant's counsel made repeated unsuccessful attempts to contact him. Libby had recommended two other experts and one of these, Peter D'Eustachio, was available. He could not, however, be prepared until November 20, 1992. Appellant concluded the presentation of his case, except for the expert DNA testimony, on the afternoon of November 19, 1992. D'Eustachio would have been ready to testify the following morning.
Earlier, Appellant had been denied a continuance that was needed for Libby to prepare for trial. Just prior to the conclusion of the defense presentation, the court also denied a one-day continuance that was needed in order to find a replacement expert witness, D'Eustachio, and prepare him for trial. Appellant was convicted in a jury trial and was sentenced to a total of 83 years in prison.
When a defendant's motion for continuance is made due to the absence of material evidence and it satisfies the statutory criteria, then the defendant is entitled to the continuance as a matter of right. Vaughn v. State (1992), Ind., 590 N.E.2d 134, 135; see Ind.Code Ann. § 35-36-7-1 (West 1986). When a motion for continuance does not satisfy the statutory requirements, the trial court's decision is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roberson v. State
...at trial. 8. Additionally, the instant matter is easily distinguishable from the Indiana Supreme Court's holding in Flowers v. State, 654 N.E.2d 1124, 1125 (Ind. 1995), where the Supreme Court held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a one-day continuance so that the defen......
-
Flowers v. State
...continuance, which was required in order for the defense to obtain the testimony of an essential DNA expert witness. See Flowers v. State, 654 N.E.2d 1124 (Ind.1995). After remand and retrial, Flowers was again convicted and sentenced. Because Flowers' aggregate sentence for the rape convic......
-
Troutman v. State
...and gave "`heed to the diverse interests'" of the parties when it denied Defendant's request for a continuance, Flowers v. State, 654 N.E.2d 1124, 1125 (Ind.1995) (quoting Vaughn v. State, 590 N.E.2d 134, 135 (Ind. 1992)). The trial court considered Defendant's prior access to each piece of......
-
Malloch v. State
...available upon his anticipated September 13, 2011, return to his office. Appellant's Br. p. 39. He then cites Flowers v. State, 654 N.E.2d 1124 (Ind.1995), where the Supreme Court concluded that the denial of a one-day continuance was an abuse of discretion. The crimes in Flowers occurred i......