Dustin E. McCowan v. State of Indiana
10 N.E.3d 522
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- McCowan was convicted of Murder after a three-week jury trial.
- Police obtained and admitted McCowan’s cell phone records, including text content and location estimates.
- McCowan waived challenges to the admissibility due to failure to properly object at trial.
- Trial court allowed the records despite disputes over reliability and accuracy of location data.
- The State used the records to place McCowan’s movements near Bach’s vehicle and the scene; McCowan sought suppression on constitutional grounds.
- McCowan pursued post-trial motions alleging ex parte communication and requested recusal, which were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver and admissibility of cell phone records | McCowan challenges admissibility based on suppression motion and reliability | McCowan preserved only location-related objections; waives content objections | Waived; records admitted under totality of circumstances; content issues go to weight. |
| Presumption of innocence instruction | Trial court failed to instruct the jury to reconcile evidence with presumption of innocence | Instruction given substantially conveyed presumption and burden of proof | Not reversible; instructions as a whole adequately informed the jury. |
| Ex parte communications and potential judge recusal | Judge should have recused due to jail recording threat; improper ex parte communication | No actual ex parte communication; emergency exception applies | No abuse of discretion; no recusal required. |
| Indiana constitutional analysis of warrantless cell data | Warrantless cell site data violated Article I, Section 11 | Exigent circumstances and minimal intrusion; emergency data necessary | Admissible under totality of circumstances; no constitutional violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Robey v. State, 454 N.E.2d 1221 (Ind. 1983) (presumption of innocence instructed to endure trial; robust jury guidance required)
- Santiago v. State, 985 N.E.2d 760 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (Robey framework satisfied by substantial instruction as a whole)
- Lee v. State, 964 N.E.2d 859 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (instructions must convey fitting evidence to innocence theory)
- Kirk v. State, 974 N.E.2d 1059 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (reflects exigent circumstances analysis; content of messages not immediately searched without warrant absent need)
- Hutcherson v. State, 966 N.E.2d 766 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (continuing objections require explicit request/recognition by trial court)
- Brooks v. State, 934 N.E.2d 1234 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (reasonableness of search under totality of circumstances)