Dennis Meadows v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
61A01-1608-PC-1762
Ind. Ct. App.Dec 6, 2017Background
- In Feb 2008 Meadows and Jeremy Hubble committed multiple burglaries; stolen items (golf cart, lawnmower, tools) were later found in a trailer tied to Meadows. Hubble testified against Meadows at trial.
- Meadows was charged with three counts of burglary (Class B, later one reduced to C) and was convicted after a July 2010 jury trial; total aggregate sentence 30 years.
- Prior to trial Meadows underwent competency evaluations (Dr. Michael Murphy and Dr. David Hilton). Murphy noted depressive symptoms that could impair cooperation; Hilton concluded Meadows had sufficient ability to consult with counsel.
- At a January 5, 2010 competency hearing Meadows stated he was competent but distrusted his then-attorney; the court found him competent and allowed a substitution of counsel.
- At trial the State introduced recorded phone calls in which Meadows asked to talk to his attorney and declined to open his trailer until speaking with counsel; the prosecutor referenced those statements in opening/closing. Defense did not object on Fifth Amendment grounds.
- Meadows filed a post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at the competency hearing and at trial (failure to object to the State’s use of pre-arrest/pre-Miranda silence). The post-conviction court denied relief; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Meadows) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance at competency hearing | Darnell moved to withdraw and effectively stopped representing Meadows at the competency hearing, leaving Meadows to speak for himself | Evaluations did not establish incompetence; court properly questioned Meadows and appointed new counsel; later counsel found no competency problems | No ineffective assistance; evidence and doctor reports support competency finding |
| Ineffective assistance at trial for not objecting to use of pre-arrest/pre-Miranda silence | Counsel should have objected to State using Meadows’ pre-custody statement/refusal to discuss the case as substantive evidence (Fifth Amendment) | No controlling Indiana authority then declaring such evidence inadmissible; courts were split; counsel plausibly chose not to object; overwhelming evidence of guilt so no prejudice | No ineffective assistance; objection unlikely to succeed and no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes deficient performance and prejudice standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Clancy v. State, 829 N.E.2d 203 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (recognized risk in eliciting pre-arrest silence; court treated such questioning as "treading on thin ice")
- Akard v. State, 924 N.E.2d 202 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (addressed post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence and found brief references did not constitute fundamental error)
- Owens v. State, 937 N.E.2d 880 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (discussed circuit split on using pre-arrest silence as substantive evidence and limited its holding to case facts)
- Bean v. State, 973 N.E.2d 35 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (police need not cease questioning a non-custodial person who requests counsel)
- United States v. Lane, 832 F.2d 1011 (7th Cir. 1987) (held substantive use of pre-arrest silence can violate Fifth Amendment)