Frank Jacobs v. State of Indiana
2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 21
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- On May 11, 2012, Frank Jacobs was accused of committing oral sex on G.L., a friend of Jacobs’ son, while holding G.L. down; Jacobs allegedly told G.L. not to tell anyone and gave him cigarettes and $5 afterward.
- G.L. reported the incident to his mother, S.L.; S.L., a police officer, and another witness observed injuries to G.L.’s penis and bite marks consistent with Jacobs’ missing teeth.
- The State charged Jacobs with Class B felony criminal deviate conduct, Class C felony battery (later treated as a lesser-included), Class C felony criminal confinement (originally D), and Class A misdemeanor battery; Jacobs was tried in a bench trial.
- During trial the court sustained State objections preventing defense cross-examination of S.L. about G.L.’s truthfulness and denied Jacobs’ late request to call his son Justin as a sur-rebuttal witness; the defense made an offer of proof.
- The court convicted Jacobs of Class B criminal deviate conduct and Class C criminal confinement and sentenced him to concurrent terms; it did not enter a separate conviction on the misdemeanor/battery count due to double jeopardy concerns.
- On appeal Jacobs challenged (1) exclusion of testimony about G.L.’s truthfulness, (2) denial of Justin as a sur-rebuttal witness, and (3) whether the confinement conviction violated double jeopardy.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Jacobs' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of S.L.’s testimony about G.L.’s truthfulness | Objections to relevancy were proper; trial court acted within discretion | Cross-examination about victim’s honesty was central to credibility and should be allowed | Court held possible exclusion non-prejudicial; any error was harmless given independent corroborating evidence and affirmed |
| Exclusion of Justin as sur-rebuttal witness | Late disclosure prejudiced State; witness could have been anticipated and should have been disclosed | Justin’s testimony responded to rebuttal testimony and bore on credibility; defense did not anticipate need until rebuttal | Exclusion within trial court’s discretion but any error was harmless because independent evidence supported conviction; affirmed |
| Double jeopardy as to confinement conviction | State conceded double jeopardy; confinement was not distinct from force used in deviate conduct | Jacobs argued confinement conviction duplicated force used in the sexual assault | Court held confinement did not exceed the force used to commit deviate conduct; double jeopardy violated — conviction for confinement vacated and remanded |
| Remedy / Sentencing effect | N/A | N/A | Court affirmed convictions except vacated the Class C confinement conviction and remanded for the trial court to vacate that conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Manuel v. State, 971 N.E.2d 1262 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (scope of cross-examination reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Williams v. State, 898 N.E.2d 400 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Meadows v. State, 785 N.E.2d 1112 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (improper admission/exclusion harmless when independent evidence supports conviction)
- Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (U.S. 1988) (exclusion of witnesses may implicate the Sixth Amendment; context-sensitive rule)
- Wiseheart v. State, 491 N.E.2d 985 (Ind. 1986) (presumption in favor of allowing defense testimony; extreme sanction of exclusion limited to purposeful breach or severe prejudice)
- Vasquez v. State, 868 N.E.2d 473 (Ind. 2007) (trial court must weigh defendant's compulsory-process rights when excluding late witnesses)
- Cook v. State, 675 N.E.2d 687 (Ind. 1996) (factors to consider when excluding late-disclosed witnesses)
- Beauchamp v. State, 788 N.E.2d 881 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (nondisclosure of rebuttal witnesses excused when witness was unknown/unanticipated)
- Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999) (double jeopardy test comparing statutory elements and actual evidence)
- Gates v. State, 759 N.E.2d 631 (Ind. 2001) (rape/criminal deviate conduct inherently involves confinement for the duration of the forcible act; separate confinement conviction valid only if confinement exceeds force used for the sexual crime)