West v. State
| Decision Date | 27 November 2019 |
| Docket Number | Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-414 |
| Parties | Dontez WEST and Kyree Guajardo, Appellants-Defendants, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Attorney for Appellants: David W. Stone IV, Anderson, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee: Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Attorney General of Indiana, George P. Sherman, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Andrew Kobe, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana
[1] Dontez West ("West") and Kyree Guajardo ("Guajardo") (collectively "the Defendants") bring this interlocutory appeal from the Madison Circuit Court's denial of their motions to dismiss the criminal charges against them after their first trial ended in a mistrial. On appeal, the Defendants claim that a retrial would constitute double jeopardy and that the trial court therefore erred in denying their motions to dismiss. Concluding that a retrial does not subject the Defendants to double jeopardy, we affirm.
[2] On August 29, 2017, a "known source," later revealed to be Eric Troutman ("Troutman"), informed officers of the Anderson Police Department ("APD") that he had seen Tiras Johnson ("Johnson") in possession of a "half brick" of cocaine, multiple firearms, and a safe believed to contain a large amount of cash at Johnson's home on Beverly Court in Anderson, Indiana. Appellants' Confidential App. Vol. 3, p. 148. A subsequent search of Johnson's home revealed multiple handguns, a large amount of cash, a safe containing a white, powdery residue that appeared to be cocaine, marijuana, approximately thirteen ounces of methamphetamine and approximately twenty-four ounces of cocaine.
[3] Subsequent investigation led to the State charging Johnson, Troutman, and the defendants West and Guajardo with various drug-related offenses. With regard to West, the State ultimately charged him with two counts of Level 3 felony dealing in cocaine, two counts of Level 6 felony dealing in marijuana, and one count each of Level 2 felony conspiracy to commit dealing in cocaine, Level 3 felony possession of cocaine, Level 5 felony corrupt business influence, and Level 6 felony money laundering. The State charged Guajardo with Level 2 felony conspiracy to commit dealing in cocaine, Level 5 felony corrupt business influence, and Level 6 felony money laundering.
[4] On October 23, 2018, Troutman entered into a plea agreement with the State that provided in part that he would, as a condition of his sentence, "testify fully and truthfully in all pretrial hearings, depositions and at trial, if called as a witness" in the State's cases against West, Guajardo, and Johnson. Appellants' App. Vol. III, p. 146.
[5] On November 16, 2018, counsel for West and Guajardo deposed Troutman. During his deposition, Troutman stated that he knew that he could obtain cocaine from West and that he sold cocaine he had bought from West for a profit in order to fund his drug habit. With regard to Johnson, West's counsel questioned Troutman as follows:
Appellants' App. Vol. 4, pp. 66–67 (emphases added).
[6] During the discovery process, the State never revealed to the defense that Troutman was the "known source" who informed police that Johnson was in possession of cocaine.
[7] At the joint trial of Guajardo and West, Troutman testified as a witness for the State after being granted use immunity. Troutman was a hesitant witness but testified that he bought cocaine from West in order to resell it to others.
[8] Also at trial, APD Sergeant Chad Boynton ("Sgt. Boynton") testified for the State. When asked to describe the circumstances that led to the search of Johnson's home, Sgt. Boynton responded:
I had received a call from Officer Marty Dulworth, K-9 Officer and Community Police Officer with our department, um, with the Anderson Police Department I should say. He had received information from Eric Troutman regarding what had been described as a half brick, a term that I know to refer to as a half kilo, of cocaine at [Johnson's] residence, as well as firearms and a large amount of cash currency .... Upon receiving that information I made an attempt to verify some of the information that was put forth, um, which included that Tiras Johnson was on in-home detention or community correction sanctions at that - at that address.
Tr. Vol. 6, p. 22 (emphasis added). After Sgt. Boynton's testimony, the trial court recessed for the day.
[9] Before the trial resumed the following morning, West's counsel requested a mistrial, arguing that, prior to Sgt. Boynton's testimony, he and Guajardo's counsel had been unaware that Troutman was the source who informed the police of cocaine at Johnson's home. The defense claimed that the State had not disclosed this information during discovery. West's counsel argued that, had he known that Troutman was the known source, he would not have attempted to attack Troutman's credibility, as his theory of the defense was that West dealt in marijuana, not cocaine, and that Johnson was the cocaine dealer. The prosecuting attorney did not deny that Troutman's identity as the source had not been revealed but claimed that he mistakenly believed he had disclosed this information to the defense.
[10] The trial court then asked counsel for all parties what the remedy should be for the State's failure to disclose Troutman's identity as the known source. The defense argued for a mistrial. The prosecuting attorney argued against a mistrial, suggesting that a continuance and further deposition of Troutman would be an adequate remedy. The trial court took the matter under advisement and, after a recess, granted the defense's request for a mistrial, stating:
Mistrials are extreme remedies, they're not to be used lightly, and there is a significant waste of resources when a mistrial is declared. And there are harms to the defense that occur, as well, when a mistrial is declared. The defendants will remain in custody until a retrial can be scheduled when a mistrial [i]s granted. In this case, however, the court is persuaded, especially with respect to defendant West, that the non-disclosed information would have had a significant impact on defense strategy that could have had a possible persuasive [e]ffect on the jurors in the case. So with great reluctance the court does find at this point that mistrial is the only remedy which is adequate to address the problem. So I am granting a mistrial in both [Defendants'] cases, they'll be rescheduled for trial.
[11] On January 3 and 7, 2019, West and Guajardo, respectively, filed motions to dismiss, arguing that their retrial was barred by double jeopardy. The trial court held a hearing on the motions on January 11, 2019, at which it heard arguments from both parties. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied the motions to dismiss, ruling in relevant part:
To restate the obvious, there was significant error that was made in the discovery process. I think that it's a simple call to characterize that as at least negligent in that there was a duty to provide the information. That duty was breached and it resulted in har[m] to the defense. So the elements of, um, negligence there are simple. The issue that the Court's asked to decide today however is a higher threshold which is that of intent. Because we're not here talking about a discovery violation or remedies for a discovery violation, but looking at the possible extreme remedy of raising a double jeopardy bar because the State has intentionally incited a mistrial. That's the element of the claim. Much of the defense argument was spent kind of going back over the circumstances and facts of the discovery violation. And, um, the Court notes that no matter how egregious the violation that doesn't get it to a level of double jeopardy bar being raised. It must be more than even the intentional wrongful withholding of evidence. It has to be the intentional incitement of a mistrial. If I look at the facts and interpret them most favorably to the defense and assume for the sake of argument here today that the State intentionally withheld Brady material for tactical advantage, um, what does that mean here? Well, it doesn't answer the question if I assume that. I still have to determine whether or not the State intended to incite a mistrial. Not whether they did something wrong, not whether they intended to hide evidence for tactical advantage, but whether they tried to cause a mistrial. I'm not aware of any Indiana case on this Oregon versus Kennedy[1 ] issue that, uh, doesn't require that the State have an intent to create a mistrial. You have to look at what the overall progress of the case had been up to that point. How was the State doing at that point. Would there have been a substantial benefit to the State in scrapping that trial and starting fresh with a new record. And the Court has to find at...
To continue reading
Request your trial