Santiago Valdez v. State of Indiana, 2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 249

Background

On April 7, 2012, Santiago Valdez assaulted his sister C.V.; a phone call to police recorded the struggle during which Valdez removed both his and C.V.’s clothing and uttered sexual threats. He was arrested and charged with attempted rape (Class B) and criminal confinement (Class C), among other counts (some later dropped).
Valdez asserted an insanity defense and later filed a suggestion of insanity; he also sought to represent himself but the trial court previously found him not competent to do so (interlocutory appeal affirmed).
The State gave notice it would introduce Valdez’s 1993 rape and confinement convictions under Evidence Rule 404(b) for the limited purpose of sanity; the parties agreed on a limiting instruction, but the jury was never given that instruction at trial.
Valdez attempted to admit documents from his 1993 case (psych evals and a police report) as Defense Exhibits M and N; the trial court excluded them for lack of authentication and hearsay concerns, though experts were shown the documents outside the jury’s presence.
During closing, the prosecutor implied defense counsel had coached defense expert Dr. Javan Horwitz to change his opinion; the trial court sustained an objection and promptly admonished the jury that counsel had not coached the witness (per testimony). The jury convicted Valdez; the court sentenced him to consecutive terms totaling 28 years.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Valdez)	Held
1. Admissibility of 1993 documents (Exhibits M & N)	Documents were inadmissible hearsay or otherwise unreliable	Documents were public records or were rendered admissible because the State opened the door by denying any prior mental-health history	Trial court did not abuse discretion: exhibits lacked authentication; State’s theme did not cure authentication deficiency, so exclusion proper
2. Right to self-representation	Competency ruling was correct and law of the case applies	Having been found not insane by the jury, Valdez argues inconsistency and that he should have been allowed to self-represent earlier	Law of the case controls; competency standard for self-representation differs from insanity; no basis to revisit prior interlocutory ruling
3. Limiting instruction about 1993 conviction	No sua sponte duty to give instruction; defendant waived reading of agreed language	Trial court should have given limiting instruction to prevent use of prior conviction as propensity evidence	No error: defendant declined to request or object to omission and thus waived the claim
4. Prosecutorial misconduct for accusing defense counsel of coaching expert	The prosecutor’s argument was a permissible credibility attack (impliedly)	Prosecutor improperly impugned opposing counsel without evidence, violating professional conduct rules and prejudicing Valdez	Misconduct occurred, but prompt trial-court admonition cured prejudice; not reversible error

Key Cases Cited

Satterfield v. State, 33 N.E.3d 344 (Ind. 2015) (standard for appellate review of evidentiary rulings)
Hall v. State, 36 N.E.3d 459 (Ind. 2015) (party may open door to otherwise inadmissible evidence to correct misleading impression)
Gilliam v. State, 383 N.E.2d 297 (Ind. 1978) (definition of when a party has left a false or misleading impression by omission)
Cutter v. State, 725 N.E.2d 401 (Ind. 2000) (law-of-the-case doctrine explained)
Edwards v. State, 902 N.E.2d 821 (Ind. 2009) (standard for competency to represent oneself)
Ryan v. State, 9 N.E.2d 663 (Ind. 2015) (framework for reviewing prosecutorial misconduct and grave peril analysis)
Hubbard v. State, 313 N.E.2d 346 (Ind. 1974) (presumption that admonishments cure prosecutorial misconduct)
Loveless v. State, 166 N.E.2d 864 (Ind. 1960) (impropriety of personally attacking opposing counsel)
Splunge v. State, 641 N.E.2d 628 (Ind. 1994) (counsel may not impugn opposing counsel’s integrity)