Flanders v. State
955 N.E.2d 732
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Flanders, pro se, challenged denial of post-conviction relief after bench trial conviction for sexual misconduct with a minor and a later repeat sex offender designation.
- During trial HP testified about the events; the State sought to admit a chat between HP and K.B. which defense admitted; objections under Evidence Rules 404(b) and 403 were overruled.
- Cross-examination revealed inconsistencies between HP’s testimony and a police report (not sworn) and defense questioned authenticity of exhibits from a 1996 case used in the repeat-offender phase.
- Five exhibits (Exhibits 1–5) used in the repeat-offender phase included personal identifiers and a certificate of business records; no witness testified to authenticity.
- Flanders was reclassified as an SVP under amendments to the sex-offender statutes; he argued the SVP process violated separation of powers, due process, and ex post facto principles; the post-conviction court denied these arguments, and the Court of Appeals partially granted relief, affirming some issues and reversing others.
- The post-conviction court held that documents admitted in the repeat-offender phase were properly certified; Jensen v. State was applied to reject ex post facto challenge, and the court found that further notice/hearing was required by 2010 statute amendments; the appellate court reversed on SVP status while affirming the other ineffective-assistance claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of chat exhibit (HP–KB) at trial | Flanders argues the chat was unauthenticated and altered | Chat was admitted as part of defense strategy to show lack of motive to report | Not ineffective; admission was a strategic choice and not reversible error |
| Evidence Rule 404(b) objections | Objections were not supported by authoritative authority showing lack of intent exception | Evidence relevant to intent and grooming; 404(b) applicable | Not ineffective; evidence admissible under Wickizer/related standards |
| Impeachment of HP via cross-examination | Counsel failed to exploit inconsistencies to impeach HP | Counsel adequately cross-examined HP; discrepancies were minor | Not ineffective; cross-examination adequate |
| Admission of repeat-offender exhibits (unauthenticated documents) | Exhibits were not properly authenticated; prejudice from unauthenticated documents | Exhibits properly certified; State showed self-authenticating records | Not ineffective; lack of prejudice shown; no fundamental error |
| SVP status under ex post facto and related due process arguments | 2007 amendments to SVP status are unconstitutional ex post facto; due process violations | Doe v. O’Connor and Jensen/Harris control; SVP status validly applied by operation of law; petition processes exist | Ex post facto violation found as applied to Flanders; remedy is to reinstate petition for status after ten years; affirmed in part and reversed in part |
Key Cases Cited
- Wickizer v. State, 626 N.E.2d 795 (Ind. 1993) (intent exception narrowly construed under 404(b))
- Piercefield v. State, 877 N.E.2d 1213 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (admissibility of certain acts to show grooming/intent)
- Jensen v. State, 905 N.E.2d 384 (Ind. 2009) (seven-factor ex post facto analysis for SVP laws; punitive effects considered)
- Harris v. State, 949 N.E.2d 803 (Ind. 2011) (SVP status by operation of law; seven-factor test; petition-rights emphasized)
- Doe v. O'Connor, 790 N.E.2d 985 (Ind. 2003) (due process challenges to publication of registry information rejected)