Isaiah Marki Walker v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 46A03-1604-CR-870

Walker met the victim, D.C., online; they arranged to walk to her school on May 5, 2015. D.C. was eighteen, had a seizure disorder, and attended a special school.
During the walk Walker forcibly led D.C. into an abandoned house, unfastened her pants, and engaged in penile‑vaginal intercourse despite D.C.’s repeated refusals and expressions of pain.
D.C. reported the assault at school, underwent a sexual assault exam (which showed injuries and semen), and testing matched Walker’s DNA. Walker later admitted to sexual intercourse but claimed it was consensual.
The State charged Walker with Level 3 felony rape. In pretrial discovery the State provided extensive materials but, due to oversight, did not list D.C. on the witness list filed weeks before trial.
At trial Walker moved to exclude D.C. or, alternatively, for a 14‑day continuance to develop impeachment evidence (including potential prior accusations involving another man); the court denied exclusion and the continuance after an evidentiary hearing.
The jury convicted Walker; he appealed arguing (1) the court abused its discretion by denying the continuance, and (2) he was entitled to a battery lesser‑included instruction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denying a continuance after the State omitted the victim from its witness list was an abuse of discretion	The State argued Walker had adequate prior notice from discovery that D.C. would likely testify and suffered no prejudice; court properly held a hearing on the late impeachment evidence instead of granting delay	Walker argued omission prevented development of impeachment evidence and compliance with rape‑shield notice requirements, so a 14‑day continuance was required	Denial of continuance was not an abuse of discretion: Walker had prior notice from discovery and the proposed impeachment evidence was speculative and inadmissible
Whether the court erred by refusing a jury instruction on lesser‑included offense of battery	The State argued intercourse was undisputed and the only issue was consent, so battery (which turns on absence of intercourse) was not a viable lesser finding	Walker argued the jury could find battery for the forcible grabbing without concluding the subsequent intercourse was non‑consensual	Court properly refused the battery instruction because there was no serious evidentiary dispute that intercourse occurred; only consent was contested

Griffith v. State, 59 N.E.3d 947 (Ind. 2016) (discovery that reasonably notifies defendant of likely witnesses reduces prejudice argument for late disclosure)
Flores v. State, 485 N.E.2d 890 (Ind. 1985) (granting continuance for an unlisted witness lies within trial court’s discretion)
Hamilton v. State, 864 N.E.2d 1104 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard for continuance rulings)
Fugett v. State, 812 N.E.2d 846 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (prior‑false‑accusation evidence admissible only if accusation is demonstrably false or witness admits falsity)
Angle v. State, 698 N.E.2d 356 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (battery is inherently included in rape but no lesser‑instruction when intercourse is undisputed)