William Hinesley, III v. State of Indiana
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 632
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- Hinesley was convicted of class A felony child molesting after a bench trial and sentenced to 30 years with 5 suspended.
- On direct appeal, the conviction was affirmed; Hinesley then filed a petition for post-conviction relief.
- At trial, Detective Downing summarized unsworn statements from VV and Billy, including hearsay within hearsay, without objections.
- VV and Billy testified; pretrial statements were admitted as substantive evidence rather than solely for impeachment; inconsistencies existed.
- Post-conviction court denied relief; Judge Craney, who presided at trial and post-conviction, authored findings; this court reviews for clear error and defers to the post-conviction court’s determinations.
- The issues include ineffective assistance for hearsay strategy, challenged vouching and uncharged misconduct, failure to introduce a medical report, and the availability of prosecutorial misconduct claims as freestanding errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hearsay as substantive evidence—ineffective assistance | Hinesley argues counsel's failure to object was unreasonable | Counsel chose a strategy to show inconsistencies and motive to fabricate | No; strategy reasonable and not deficient |
| Vouching testimony—ineffective assistance | Counsel failed to object to vouching by detective and witness | Objections would not have changed bench trial outcome | No; not deficient under the circumstances |
| Uncharged misconduct references—prejudicial error | Statements implying uncharged misconduct should have been redacted | References were inconsequential and did not prejudice outcome | No; insufficient prejudice |
| Medical report—ineffective assistance for nonintroduction | Medical report would strengthen defense by showing lack of injury | Report's significance diminished by defense theory and DNA evidence | No; failure to introduce not outcome-determinative |
| Freestanding prosecutorial misconduct on post-conviction review | Issue not raised on direct appeal should be considered | Freestanding claims unavailable in post-conviction | Unavailable as freestanding claim; not reviewable here |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilkes v. State, 984 N.E.2d 1236 (Ind. 2013) (standard for post-conviction relief, prejudice and deference to PCR court)
- Curtis v. State, 905 N.E.2d 410 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (deliberate use of hearsay strategy may be reasonable defense tactic)
- Hoglund v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1230 (Ind. 2012) (vouching testimony eliminated for child-molesting cases)
- Konopasek v. State, 946 N.E.2d 23 (Ind. 2011) (judicial-temperance presumption in bench trials)
- Kubsch v. State, 934 N.E.2d 1138 (Ind. 2010) (exculpatory value of evidence and insufficiency of impact)