Scott Speers v. State of Indiana
988 N.E.2d 1238
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- Scroggins Gun Shop burglary on October 25, 2010; front door forced open, glass display case broken, eight guns stolen, mural surveillance did not identify the perpetrator.
- Blood-like stains on glass fragments collected by an evidence technician and sent to the lab for testing.
- Initial suspect Faucett swabbed; DNA testing excluded Faucett; CODIS later linked Speers as a suspect.
- Speers’ DNA matched DNA from the glass; police obtained a warrant to swab Speers’ cheek for DNA; Speers charged February 22, 2011.
- Trial held July 17–18, 2011; Speers convicted of burglary (class C) and theft (class D); sentenced to eight years and three years concurrent.
- Crim. Rule 4(C) discharge motion denied after extensive delay; total delay related to Speers’s conduct and multiple continuances, yielding no discharge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crim. Rule 4(C) discharge entitlement | Speers seeks discharge due to delay. | Delays caused by defense motions and Speers’s conduct; State’s continuances permissible. | No discharge; delays attributable to Speers; denial affirmed. |
| Admission of DNA results vs. Confrontation Clause | DNA testing testimony suffices though technician who transferred samples did not testify. | Stickle’s absence violated confrontation for the transfer step. | No violation; Pendergrass controls; analyst James’s testimony adequate; Konfrontation satisfied. |
| Evidentiary harpoon claim during detective’s direct examination | State deliberately elicited prejudicial insinuations about Speers’ criminal history. | Exchange injected improper evidence and created grave peril. | Not an evidentiary harpoon; not grave peril; testimony transitionary and did not prejudice trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pendergrass v. State, 913 N.E.2d 703 (Ind. 2009) (DNA certificate may be testimonial; supervisor testimony suffices for confrontation)
- Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (S. Ct. 2012) (confrontation not required for certain non-testimonial DNA reports in Williams)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (S. Ct. 2009) (rejects blanket rule requiring live testimony for all chain-of-custody witnesses)
- Curtis v. State, 949 N.E.2d 1143 (Ind. 2011) (Crim. Rule 4(C) delay standard and abuse of discretion review)
- Cole v. State, 780 N.E.2d 394 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (continuance attribution not dependent on defendant’s motive)
- Kirby v. State, 774 N.E.2d 523 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (definition of evidentiary harpoon and required showing)