38 N.E.3d 739
Ind. Ct. App.2015Background
- Horton was charged in Tippecanoe Superior Court with multiple domestic battery and related counts following a December 4, 2013 incident with Kebran Fettig.
- Fettig was assaulted; Horton allegedly pinned her, choked her, and made threats, with visible injuries reported.
- The State charged Horton with Class D felony domestic battery, Class A misdemeanor domestic battery, two counts of Class D felony strangulation, and Class A misdemeanor intimidation; the intimidation charge was later dismissed.
- A jury trial was held on the remaining charges; Horton was found guilty of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery and not guilty of the strangulation counts.
- Before trial on the enhancement, Horton waived his right to a jury trial for the Class D felony enhancement; the court proceeded to a bench trial on the enhancement.
- Evidence for the enhancement included an unsigned sentencing order from a 2002 domestic battery conviction, plus accompanying materials, and the court took judicial notice of its file.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Horton validly waived the jury trial for the enhancement | Horton’s waiver was knowing and voluntary | Waiver was not personal or adequately informed | Waiver was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent |
Key Cases Cited
- Abdullah v. State, 847 N.E.2d 1031 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (prior conviction proof—unsigned abstract insufficient; now judicial notice permissible of court files)
- Gray v. State, 871 N.E.2d 408 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (judicial notice of own records context prior to Rule 201(b))
- O’Connor v. State, 796 N.E.2d 1230 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (waiver must be voluntary, knowing, intelligent; personal assent required)
- Reynolds v. State, 703 N.E.2d 701 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (waiver may be evidenced by in-court colloquy, not necessarily written)
- McSchooler v. State, 15 N.E.3d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (counsel can confirm waiver in open court; defense may rely on counsel’s statements)
- Poore v. State, 681 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. 1997) (familiarity with judicial process supports waiver inference)
- Johnson v. State, 6 N.E.3d 491 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (waiver need not be written; can be through colloquy)
- Crider v. State, 984 N.E.2d 618 (Ind. 2013) (courts presumed to know and apply the law; judicial notice context)