Jewell v. State, 957 N.E.2d 625

Jewell was arrested in Aug 2008 for tattooing a minor and retained counsel for that charge.
While tattooing was pending, T.S. disclosed a long-term sexual relationship with Jewell; police began sex-crime investigations.
Detective Judy recorded calls with Jewell; Jewell made statements about sexual misconduct, unaware of the ongoing tattoo charge.
Jewell was charged with multiple sex offenses and tattooing was dismissed; he moved to suppress the recorded statements.
Trial court denied suppression; jury convicted Jewell on six counts and he was sentenced to 40 years; Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of Section 13 vs Sixth Amendment	Jewell argues Article 1, Section 13 is broader than the Sixth Amendment.	State argues protection is offense-specific per Cobb and unaltered by Section 13.	Indiana adopts an 'inextricably intertwined' exception under Section 13.
Application of the test to whether offenses are intertwined	State contends offenses are linked by conduct and timing.	Jewell contends the sexual offenses were not inextricably intertwined with tattooing.	Sexual misconduct was not inextricably intertwined with tattooing based on facts known to Detective Judy.
Admissibility of recorded statements under the exception	State asserts statements were properly obtained and not prohibited by Section 13.	Jewell contends right to counsel was violated for the pending offense.	The statements were admissible; no Section 13 violation found.
Forty-year sentence appropriateness	State argues sentence fits the offenses and offender.	Jewell argues the sentence is inappropriate given the nature of the conduct.	Sentence affirmed by summary reasoning; conviction and sentence ultimately sustained.

McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171 (1991) (offense-specific right to counsel; not for all future prosecutions)
Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977) (circumstances informing the offense-specific right to counsel)
Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159 (1985) (circumvention of right to counsel by state agents)
Texas v. Cobb, 532 U.S. 162 (2001) (rejected 'inextricably intertwined' under federal Constitution; Blockburger framework)
United States v. Covarrubias, 179 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 1999) (framework for 'inextricably intertwined' analysis)
United States v. Kidd, 12 F.3d 30 (4th Cir. 1993) (closely related factors; caution against broad application)
United States v. Carpenter, 963 F.2d 736 (5th Cir. 1992) (example where offenses not inextricably intertwined)
Chenoweth v. State, 281 Ga. 7 (Ga. 2006) (Georgia constitution analysis of 'inextricably intertwined' concept)