Maxey v. State
| Decision Date | 02 June 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 45S00-9804-CR-195.,45S00-9804-CR-195. |
| Citation | 730 N.E.2d 158 |
| Parties | John Wallace MAXEY, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Jeff Schlesinger, Crown Point, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
Jeffrey A. Modisett, Attorney General of Indiana, Arthur Thaddeus Perry, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
Defendant John Wallace Maxey was convicted of killing his employer in the pizza restaurant where he worked. He appeals, claiming that certain procedural and evidentiary rulings unfairly prejudiced him. Finding the rulings proper or otherwise resulting in harmless error, we affirm.
We have jurisdiction over this direct appeal because the longest single sentence exceeds 50 years. Ind. Const. art. VII, § 4; Ind. Appellate Rule 4(A)(7).
The facts most favorable to the verdict reveal that on October 31, 1996, someone walked into the Stonehouse Pizza restaurant and shot and killed the owner in broad daylight.
Detective Hinojosa was assigned to the case that day and arrived on scene at approximately 4:10 p.m. By that time, police had found the victim, Chung Yoo, in the back of the restaurant in an office area. One of the victim's pockets was pulled out. Police had also recovered .22 caliber casings in the kitchen and .25 caliber casings in the restaurant lobby. Detective Hinojosa questioned the co-owner, Mrs. Yoo, who had returned to the restaurant shortly after her husband was killed. She told Detective Hinojosa that there had been a shortage in the previous day's money, and that she and her husband had confronted Defendant John Wallace Maxey about it.
Detective Hinojosa went to Defendant's home and he agreed to come to the station for questioning. Defendant confirmed that the Yoos had confronted him about the missing money. He denied involvement in the murder, however, and was allowed to leave the station. Police officials later learned from Linda Ahmed, Defendant's sister, that there were two handguns, a .22 caliber and a .25 caliber, in the home where she lived with Defendant and others.
On the basis of this and other incriminating evidence, charges were filed against Defendant on November 7, 1996. After several unsuccessful attempts to locate Defendant in state, Detective Hinojosa learned that Defendant was in custody in Nashville, Tennessee. Defendant was extradited to Indiana on March 17, 1997.
After a five-day trial ending on November 21, 1997, a jury found Defendant guilty of Murder,1 Felony Murder (Robbery),2 and Robbery,3 a Class A felony. The trial court merged the latter two convictions into the first and imposed a sentence of 60 years. Defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions but appeals certain procedural and evidentiary rulings, claiming that he suffered unfair prejudice.
We will recite additional facts as needed.
Defendant contends that the trial court committed reversible error in denying his motion for a continuance on the morning of the trial. He claims that he was prejudiced by the "court's refusal to grant a continuance due to lack of conference time with his attorney in that his attorney had been unable to depose several witnesses." Appellant's Br. at 8.
Indiana Code § 35-36-7-1 provides for a continuance upon a proper showing of an absence of evidence or the illness or absence of the defendant or a witness. Rulings on non-statutory motions for continuance, such as Defendant's, lie within the discretion of the trial court and will be reversed only for an abuse of that discretion and resultant prejudice. See Chinn v. State, 511 N.E.2d 1000, 1004 (Ind.1987)
(citing Brown v. State, 448 N.E.2d 10 (Ind. 1983)); see also Little v. State, 501 N.E.2d 447, 449 (1986) ().
Defendant fails to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the denial of his motion for continuance. See Vance v. State, 640 N.E.2d 51, 55 (Ind.1994)
. He acknowledges that those witnesses whom "his attorney had been unable to depose" were State witnesses who did not testify at trial. See Appellant's Br. at 8. And his primary "rationale for his motion, that his attorney did not have time to adequately prepare, was contradicted by the attorney." Little, 501 N.E.2d at 449.
(R. at 124-25.) After noting that the case had been twice continued (once by the State and once by the trial court due to a congested docket), the trial judge offered the following explanation:
I would further point out that the case was filed in November of 1996. Mr. Maxey has not been here since that time. He arrived in our jurisdiction somewhere around the 17th of March. He had an initial hearing on the 18th of March, and [defense counsel] was appointed. And the state's initial discovery response came on April 4th. This is November 17th. So the defendant has been here for eight months, and this is not a speedy trial by any means. There's been some supplemental discovery filed. [ (To defense counsel:) ] You're familiar with that? [ (Defense counsel responds:) ] Yes. Judge.
(R. at 127-28.)
This is not a situation where a defendant meets his attorney for the first time shortly before proceeding to trial. See, e.g., Jones v. State, 175 Ind.App. 343, 347, 371 N.E.2d 1314, 1316 (1978)
(); Hartman v. State, 155 Ind.App. 199, 207, 292 N.E.2d 293, 297 (1973) ().
Here, defense counsel had ample time to prepare for trial, including the opportunity to review both initial and supplemental discovery materials. Defendant fails to direct this Court to any portion of the record where he was prejudiced by counsel's representation. Moreover, our review of the record fails to uncover any evidence that defense counsel was not prepared for trial. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion for a continuance.
Defendant next contends that the trial court improperly admitted evidence, over hearsay and relevance objections, that he was apprehended out of state. He argues that this was "evidence of flight," the prejudicial effect of which outweighed its probative value. The evidence was in the form of Detective Hinojosa testifying that "he had obtained information [that] the Defendant had left the area and gone to Tennessee." Appellant's Br. at 8. The State argued at trial that the testimony was admissible because Detective Hinojosa "was recounting the course of his investigation."
Assuming for the moment (an assumption we will revisit) that Detective Hinojosa's testimony that Defendant had gone to Tennessee was comprised entirely of out-of-court statements, we are presented with a classic Craig problem. Craig v. State, 630 N.E.2d 207 (Ind.1994). Craig dealt with the common situation of an investigating police officer testifying as to information learned in the course of investigation. This information would be hearsay if offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted. But the State argues that its admissibility is justified on grounds that it is offered merely to describe the course of the investigation. Here, again assuming that Detective Hinojosa's testimony was comprised entirely of out-of-court statements, the information would be hearsay if offered to prove that Defendant had gone to Tennessee. But the State argues that its admissibility, as noted, was justified on grounds that it was offered merely to describe the course of the investigation.
In Craig, we required trial courts to perform the following analysis when there is a challenge to the testimony of police detectives who are recounting out-of-court statements received during investigations. See id. at 210. First, the trial court should inquire if the testimony describes an out-of-court statement asserting a fact susceptible of being true or false. See id. at 211. "If the out-of-court statement does contain an assertion of fact, then the [trial court] should consider . . . the evidentiary purpose of the proffered statement." Id. Finally, if there is a proffered purpose, the court should ask: "Is the fact to be proved under the suggested purpose for the statement relevant to some issue in the case, and does any danger of prejudice outweigh its probative value?" Id.
Craig dealt with (and has been used in other cases to analyze) the admissibility of evidence of out-of-court statements received by police officers engaged in investigative work challenged as hearsay.
However, Craig's rationale is applicable in analyzing the admissibility of any otherwise inadmissible evidence that the State argues is admissible because it merely describes the course of police investigation. Cf. Swanson v. State, 666 N.E.2d 397, 399 (Ind.1996)
().
For purposes of conducting a Craig analysis, we continue to assume that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burton v. State
...the discretion of the trial court and will be reversed only for an abuse of that discretion and resultant prejudice. Maxey v. State, 730 N.E.2d 158, 160 (Ind.2000). An abuse of discretion occurs only when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. P......
-
Hyppolite v. State
...the discretion of the trial court and will be reversed only for an abuse of that discretion and resultant prejudice. Maxey v. State, 730 N.E.2d 158, 160 (Ind.2000). An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Palme......
-
Sobolewski v. State
...upon a proper showing by affidavit of an absence of evidence or the illness or absence of the defendant or a witness. See Maxey v. State, 730 N.E.2d 158, 160 (Ind.2000). Rulings on a non-statutory motion for continuance, such as Sobolewski's, lie within the discretion of the trial court and......
-
Stafford v. State
...the discretion of the trial court and will be reversed only for an abuse of that discretion and resultant prejudice. Maxey v. State, 730 N.E.2d 158, 160 (Ind.2000). An abuse of discretion occurs only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. ......