Evidence in the Courtroom

State of Indiana v. Josiah Turner

Marion County Criminal Court Division 1

Prosecutor : Ms. Augustine

Court visit: November 13, 2007

Summary:

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 Turner's 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 Josiah's 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 Turner's 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.

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