Allison Nickels v. State of Indiana
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 324
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Allison Nickels was charged with domestic battery (Level 6 felony, committed in presence of a child) and interference with reporting (Class A misdemeanor) after a 2016 altercation with her ex-husband while they lived together with their children.
- At a February 9, 2017 bench trial, the State called the ex-husband and the responding officer; Nickels testified and admitted striking her ex-husband but disputed that it occurred in the child’s presence and denied interfering with the phone.
- After both sides rested, the court asked for argument; the State began closing, the court interrupted, announced it was finding for the State, then later asked defense counsel if he had argument and received a brief statement.
- The court then found Nickels guilty as charged and immediately sentenced her to 558 days (time served); Nickels appealed arguing denial of her right to closing argument.
- The Court of Appeals held the trial judge’s announcement of a verdict before allowing meaningful defense summation denied Nickels her constitutional right to a closing argument in a bench trial and reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nickels was denied the right to present a closing argument before the court announced its verdict | State: trial court invited defense argument and any failure to object waived the claim | Nickels: court announced its decision while State was arguing, then only allowed a brief, post-decision statement — no meaningful opportunity to argue | Reversed: trial court committed reversible error by announcing verdict before affording a proper closing argument; new trial ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853 (1975) (bench-trial right to be heard in summation is part of the criminal-trial process)
- King v. State, 467 N.E.2d 726 (Ind. 1984) (advocacy by both sides promotes just outcomes)
- Casterlow v. State, 267 N.E.2d 552 (Ind. 1971) (earlier waiver discussion of closing argument in bench trials)
- Lee v. State, 369 N.E.2d 1083 (Ind. Ct. App. 1977) (discussion of practice when court announces verdict without argument)
- United States v. Spears, 671 F.2d 991 (7th Cir. 1982) (defendant must have clear opportunity to assert or waive summation before verdict)
- Spence v. State, 463 A.2d 808 (Md. 1983) (post-verdict or stricken verdict arguments do not satisfy due-process right to pre-verdict summation)
- U.S. v. King, 650 F.2d 534 (4th Cir. 1981) (trial judge’s statement that finding is made while inviting argument denied any real opportunity for summation)