Jermaine Davis v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 45A03-1606-CR-1636

On August 22, 2013, Jermaine Davis allegedly approached and shot Willie Bailey multiple times as Bailey unlocked his home; Bailey survived but is paralyzed from the waist down. Eyewitnesses (including family members) identified Davis as the shooter and Bailey identified Davis in a photo array and to police from the hospital.
Police recovered four cartridge casings and three bullets at the scene; an ISP lab report (prepared by Melissa Oberg) concluded the casings and bullets each came from a single weapon, but did not identify the shooter.
The State charged Davis with attempted murder (Class A) and related felony counts; at trial the State disclosed the ISP lab report to defense counsel the Saturday before trial when it was discovered.
Defense counsel argued the late disclosure undermined his defense theory of lack of investigation; the trial court denied a continuance to address the late disclosure and admitted the report.
On the first day of trial Davis told the court he lacked confidence in his attorney and requested a continuance to obtain new counsel; the court denied the request, noting prior opportunity to hire counsel and that Davis had been represented for some time.
The jury convicted Davis of attempted murder (merged counts), and the court sentenced him to 45 years. Davis appealed, arguing (1) the denial of a continuance for late disclosure prejudiced him, and (2) the denial of a continuance to secure new counsel violated his right to counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of a continuance for the State’s late disclosure of the lab report was an abuse of discretion	State: late disclosure was inadvertent; remedy of continuance unnecessary because report did not identify shooter and did not prejudice defense	Davis: late disclosure undermined defense theory (alibi/lack of investigation) and required more time to respond	Court: No abuse of discretion; report did not affect alibi or investigative-adequacy defenses; denial harmless given overwhelming ID evidence
Whether denying a continuance to obtain new counsel violated Davis’s right to counsel of choice	State: trial court acted within discretion denying a last-minute continuance; Davis had ample time earlier to retain counsel	Davis: requested new counsel on morning of trial due to loss of confidence; needed continuance to obtain chosen counsel	Court: No violation; right to counsel of choice is not absolute and last-minute requests are disfavored; Davis had prior opportunity and delay was unreasonable

Berry v. State, 715 N.E.2d 864 (Ind. 1999) (trial court discretion in discovery violations; continuance is typical remedy)
Childress v. State, 938 N.E.2d 1265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (must object and seek continuance for late-disclosed evidence; review for prejudice)
Lewis v. State, 730 N.E.2d 686 (Ind. 2000) (right to counsel of choice not absolute; review for unreasonable/arbitrary denial)
Parr v. State, 504 N.E.2d 1014 (Ind. 1987) (counsel-of-choice must be exercised at appropriate stage)
Perry v. State, 638 N.E.2d 1236 (Ind. 1994) (denial of last-minute continuance to hire counsel is within court’s discretion)
Beadin v. State, 533 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 1989) (same)
Dickson v. State, 520 N.E.2d 101 (Ind. 1988) (same)
Vacendak v. State, 431 N.E.2d 100 (Ind. 1982) (same)
Collins v. State, 413 N.E.2d 264 (Ind. 1980) (same)