Otte v. State
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 230
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Otte assaulted Colleen Amos and Justin Shaffer at Amos's home on November 11, 2010, while Amos's infant was present and after breaking in; Amos was knocked down and injured; Otte had a .14 BAC.
- Charges filed November 15, 2010 included residential entry, batteries, criminal mischief, Otte’s DUI, and failure to stop; habitual offender allegation added later.
- Between March and June 2011, Otte moved for speedy trial under Criminal Rule 4; the State sought and obtained a limited continuance due to unavailable witnesses.
- The May 9, 2011 hearing led to a two-week extension and trial rescheduled to June 2, 2011; Rule 4(D) continuance was found justified due to witness unavailability.
- During trial, Amos testified about a prior 2009 recantation; on redirect, the State noted Amos was ultimately convicted on related charges.
- The State presented domestic violence expert Creekbaum to explain recantation propensity; Otte was convicted on multiple counts and for Habitual Offender status; sentence totaled eight and one-half years with additional consecutive term for habitual offender finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 4(D) continuance was proper | Otte argues continuance violated seventy-day rule and was not justified. | State contends witness unavailability and reasonable efforts warranted a Rule 4(D) extension. | Rule 4(D) extension justified; no error. |
| Whether Creekbaum's testimony about recantation propensity was admissible | Otte asserts Rule 702/704/403 errors and potential vouching. | State contends expert testimony explains domestic violence behavior and recantation credibility. | Testimony admitted without error; proper under Rules 702, 704, and 403. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wooley v. State, 716 N.E.2d 919 (Ind. 1999) (Rule 4(D) continuance justified for witness unavailability)
- Sims v. State, 267 Ind. 215, 368 N.E.2d 1352 (Ind. 1977) (witness out of country on vacation as reason for delay)
- Chambers v. State, 848 N.E.2d 298 (Ind.Ct. App. 2006) (standard for evaluating Rule 4 continuances)
- Brown v. State, 725 N.E.2d 823 (Ind. 2000) (preservation of Rule 4 challenges via objections or discharge)
- Iqbal v. State, 805 N.E.2d 401 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (use of expert testimony to explain domestic violence behavior)
- Carnahan v. State, 681 N.E.2d 1164 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (domestic abuse syndrome admissibility guidance)
- Hoglund v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1230 (Ind. 2012) (limits on indirect vouching in child witness cases; syndrome evidence allowed)
- Carter v. State, 754 N.E.2d 877 (Ind. 2001) (expert testimony explaining degraded ability to deceive in autistic child case)