Ramirez v. State

• Decision Date: 27 April 2022
• Docket Number: Supreme Court Case No. 21S-CR-373
• Citation: 186 N.E.3d 89
• Parties: Juventino V. RAMIREZ, Appellant v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

186 N.E.3d 89

Juventino V. RAMIREZ, Appellant

v.STATE of Indiana, Appellee

Supreme Court Case No. 21S-CR-373

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Argued: October 21, 2021

Filed April 27, 2022

ATTORNEY FOR APPELANT: Stacy R. Uliana, Bargersville, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, Jodi K. Stein, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Caroline G. Templeton, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana

On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 20A-CR-1982

Rush, Chief Justice.

Although no trial is ever perfect, it is axiomatic that defendants are entitled to a fair trial. Here, Ramirez's proceeding fell short of that mark. An impermissible local rule and an improperly issued protective order prevented his defense attorney—despite multiple attempts—from obtaining a copy of the alleged victim's interview. And when the State disclosed extensive new evidence the day before trial, the defense repeatedly requested a continuance—even as little as one day—to investigate the new allegations and reconstruct trial strategy. But those requests were denied without the balancing of interests our precedent requires. On this record, the errors relating to counsel's inability to receive a copy of the interview do not require reversal, but the denial of a continuance does. We therefore reverse and remand for a new trial.

Facts and Procedural History

Juventino Ramirez met Angelica Guzman at church and, in 2016, the couple married and moved into Ramirez's home. At the time, Angelica's six-year-old daughter, A.P., lived with her biological father. But a few months after the marriage, A.P. moved in with her mother and Ramirez.

In 2019, after returning from visiting her father, A.P. told Angelica that "she didn't want to come back." Though A.P. didn't explain why at the time, she later confided in her mother that Ramirez had touched her inappropriately in the past. So, Angelica took A.P. to a local nonprofit and reported her daughter's disclosure. During an approximately twenty-minute forensic interview, A.P. provided the following details: Ramirez had touched her vaginal area "over the clothes" with "a hand" several times when she was seven- and eight-years-old; he had told her not to tell her mother; he had recently apologized; and the touching had occurred at their home. The State subsequently charged Ramirez with one count of felony child molestation.

Over the next eight months, Ramirez's attorney and the Allen County Prosecutor's Office litigated an array of discovery issues, including the defense's repeated, unsuccessful requests for a copy of A.P.’s forensic interview. The prosecutor initially informed Ramirez—through a letter imposing discovery conditions—that "any police reports, DVDs, CDs, witness lists, medical reports, etcetera, may not be copied, reproduced, nor provided to anyone, including the defendant." The defense rejected these conditions and responded that it would "proceed with discovery as set forth under applicable case law and rules of trial procedure."

And so, Ramirez's counsel requested from the State "copies of any and all ... video or DVD recordings" it relied upon in bringing the charges as well as copies of any exhibits it planned to introduce at trial. The prosecutor declined to provide a copy of the interview, relying on Allen County Local Criminal Rule 13 ("Local Rule"), which requires defense counsel to apply to the trial court "to obtain copies of audio or videotape" and "state in specific terms the necessity for such copies." Allen LR02-TR26-1(B)(1).

Believing the Local Rule was contrary to the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, Ramirez's counsel filed two motions with the court to compel discovery and sent letters to the prosecutor's office seeking a time to come pick it up. In response to one of those letters, the prosecutor informed Ramirez's attorney that he could view the interview "with your client, at our office, during normal business hours," but refused, "under any circumstances," to provide him a copy.

At a subsequent hearing on the motions to compel, Ramirez's counsel explained to the trial court that it "is extremely burdensome ... to have to keep running down to the prosecutor's office to look at [the] interview." He suggested a reasonable remedy would be for the court to issue a protective order for the recording, mandating that it would stay in his law office and not be given out. The State, relying on the Local Rule, insisted that Ramirez was not "entitled to a copy" and that he needed to come "by appointment" to view the video. The trial court agreed with the State and issued a protective order prohibiting Ramirez from obtaining a copy.

In May, two months before trial, the State disclosed that it planned to use the video at trial. Ramirez again moved to compel the State to produce a copy, claiming it "is ineffective to have a trial exhibit [ ] remain at the prosecutor's office where trial counsel cannot have access to the exhibit for purposes of trial preparation." The court again denied Ramirez's motion, noting that the State had provided discovery consistent with the Local Rule.

Then, the day before Ramirez's jury trial, the prosecutor delved "into the facts of the case" with Angelica and A.P. for the first time. After their conversation, the prosecutor sent the defense an email detailing the discussions which included several new allegations. A.P. now alleged that Ramirez had touched her "under the clothes" with both "hands." And Angelica now alleged that, before reporting it, she sought counsel from her pastor and church leaders; Ramirez had pressured her to persuade A.P. to lie at trial; Ramirez had promised Angelica houses, cars, and money if she dropped the charges; Ramirez had said that A.P. cried one of the times that he touched her, causing him to stop; and Ramirez had told his pastor that he touched A.P. Within four hours of receiving this new information, Ramirez filed a motion that, in part, requested the court grant a continuance because the new allegations materially changed his theory of defense and counsel needed time to complete additional discovery.

The next morning, before questioning prospective jurors, the trial court heard argument on Ramirez's request. Counsel repeatedly indicated that he needed additional time to effectively prepare a defense against the new allegations. The State objected, asserting "we've presented all of the facts as we know them." In denying Ramirez's request, the trial court stated, "A motion to continue day of trial filing is not timely and I don't see a reason to continue the trial." When the defense asked for an explanation, the court—three more times—simply responded that the motion was "not timely."

With the continuance denied, Ramirez's counsel again requested a copy of the forensic interview so he could redact inadmissible evidence and "get it ready" to use as an exhibit. The State objected, reminding the court it had "already ruled on the forensic interview," and claiming it no longer intended to use the recording during trial "unless the evidence goes in a direction that requires us to." But, the State offered, if Ramirez needed the video, it would "redact the portions that [counsel] is referring to and provide those." Over Ramirez's emphatic objections, the trial court found the State's solution amenable. Ramirez then requested a one-day continuance so that the defense could "work with this DVD and [ ] question each of these witnesses." The court responded, "We cannot begin tomorrow.... You'll have overnight, you'll have the lunch hour. If we get done sooner, you'll have all that time."

During the two-day trial that followed, the defense twice renewed its request for a continuance, yet again to no avail. The jury ultimately found Ramirez guilty, and the court sentenced him to six years executed. Ramirez raised multiple issues on appeal, and our Court of Appeals affirmed in a memorandum decision. Ramirez v. State , 20A-CR-1982, 2021 WL 1805821, at *1 (Ind. Ct. App. May 6, 2021). He then sought transfer, which we granted, vacating the Court of Appeals opinion. Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A).

Discussion and Decision

Though criminal defendants are not entitled to a perfect proceeding, they are entitled to a fair one. Durden v. State , 99 N.E.3d 645, 651 (Ind. 2018) (citing Delaware v. Van Arsdall , 475 U.S. 673, 681, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986) ). A fair proceeding must afford defense attorneys both the ability to obtain discoverable evidence and an adequate amount of time to prepare an effective defense. See Howard v. State , 122 N.E.3d 1007, 1014 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied ; see also Beville v. State , 71 N.E.3d 13, 22–24 (Ind. 2017) ; Whitaker v. Becker , 960 N.E.2d 111, 115 (Ind. 2012). And, ultimately, the determination of "what may be useful to the defense can properly and effectively be made only by an advocate." Dennis v. United States , 384 U.S. 855, 875, 86 S.Ct. 1840, 16 L.Ed.2d 973 (1966).

Ramirez claims he was denied a fair proceeding because of his attorney's inability to obtain a copy of A.P.’s forensic interview during discovery and his unsuccessful request for a continuance. As for not receiving a copy of the interview, Ramirez maintains that the Local Rule, on which the trial court relied in denying his motions to compel, is void because it conflicts with the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure. And he also asserts that the court erred in granting the State's motion for a protective order for the video because the State did not establish that the order was necessary. As for the trial court's denial of his continuance request, Ramirez maintains that he suffered prejudice because the court did not properly weigh and evaluate his need for additional time to defend against the new accusations.

We hold that Ramirez was denied a fair proceeding. The Local Rule is void because it imposes requirements not found in our trial rules for obtaining otherwise discoverable...