James O. Jones v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
12A02-1606-CR-1502
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jun 30, 2017Background
- In July 2015, James O. Jones lived with his fiancée and several children, including seven‑year‑old K.B., who called Jones "Daddy." Painter (the fiancée) left K.B. with Jones; on return she found K.B. bent over a bed with pants down and Jones touching K.B.'s bare buttocks. Painter called police and K.B. was examined at a hospital.
- Detective Hickson interviewed Jones at the police station for about 1¾ hours; Jones signed a Miranda waiver, made admissions during the recorded interview, and wrote an apology before being arrested.
- Jones was charged with two counts of child molesting (Level 1 and Level 4); the Level 1 count was later dismissed and the jury convicted Jones of the Level 4 offense. The trial court adjudicated him a sexually violent predator.
- Jones moved to suppress statements from the interrogation; the trial court denied suppression and later admitted the recorded interview evidence at trial over Jones’s objections.
- At sentencing the court imposed a 10‑year term (7 executed, 3 suspended). Jones appealed, raising evidentiary and confrontation/cross‑examination claims and arguing his sentence was inappropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Jones) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of interrogation statements (coercion) | Statements voluntary; video and waiver show voluntariness | Detective Hickson’s promises/deceptions coerced involuntary admissions | Court: No abuse of discretion; totality of circumstances supports voluntariness |
| Scope of cross‑examination | Limiting cross to State’s direct examination was proper regulation of scope | Court’s limitation prevented Jones from exploring omitted portions without testifying, infringing rights | Court: No constitutional violation; limitation was within discretion and not prejudicial |
| Testimony about recorded statements when officer was outside room | Officer may recount what recording showed; testimony not expressing guilt opinion | Jones: Officer’s statements were inadmissible opinion or hearsay about statements captured on camera | Court: Distinct from improper ultimate‑fact opinion; testimony admissible; hearsay issue not raised on appeal |
| Appropriateness of sentence under App. R. 7(B) | Sentence within statutory range and justified by offense and history | Sentence inappropriate given character/mitigating factors | Court: Sentence (10 years, 7 executed) not inappropriate given nature of offense and prior sexual‑offense history |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. State, 973 N.E.2d 1211 (Ind. Ct. App.) (standard for abuse of discretion on evidentiary rulings)
- Miller v. State, 770 N.E.2d 763 (Ind. 2002) (totality of circumstances test for voluntariness of statements)
- Schmitt v. State, 730 N.E.2d 147 (Ind.) (burden on State to prove voluntariness beyond reasonable doubt)
- Clark v. State, 994 N.E.2d 252 (Ind.) (appeal posture limits review of suppression rulings when appeal follows final judgment)
- Washington v. State, 808 N.E.2d 617 (Ind.) (focus on entire interrogation when assessing coercion)
- Massey v. State, 473 N.E.2d 146 (Ind.) (confessions induced by promises of leniency may be involuntary)
- Malloc v. State, 980 N.E.2d 887 (Ind. Ct. App.) (vague promises of cooperation do not automatically render confession inadmissible)
- Williams v. State, 43 N.E.3d 578 (Ind. 2015) (opinion testimony by officer about defendant’s guilt on ultimate issue is inadmissible under Evidence Rule 704(b))
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind.) (App. R. 7(B) framework for sentence‑appropriateness review)
- Serino v. State, 798 N.E.2d 852 (Ind.) (factors for appellate revision of sentences)
- Nasser v. State, 646 N.E.2d 673 (Ind. Ct. App.) (cross‑examination scope and reversal standard)
- Stonebraker v. State, 505 N.E.2d 55 (Ind.) (total denial of cross‑examination is constitutional error)
- Ingram v. State, 547 N.E.2d 823 (Ind.) (defendant must show prejudice from cross‑examination restriction)