Xavier Heckstall v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2018 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Mar 15 2018, 9:15 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Denise L. Turner Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
DTurner Legal LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Monika Prekopa Talbot
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Xavier Heckstall, March 15, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A04-1709-CR-2158
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Stanley E. Kroh,
Appellee-Plaintiff Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G03-1607-F1-29330
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1709-CR-2158 | March 15, 2018 Page 1 of 7
[1] Xavier Heckstall was convicted of Level 3 Felony Kidnapping,1 Level 6 Felony
Intimidation,2 Level 6 Felony Criminal Recklessness,3 Level 6 Felony Pointing
a Firearm,4 Level 6 Felony Strangulation,5 and two counts of Level 1 Felony
Rape.6 He appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion for
a continuance. Finding no error, we affirm.
Facts
[2] Heckstall, T.C., and T.C.’s three children lived together in a three-bedroom
apartment in Indianapolis. On July 26, 2016, Heckstall and T.C. began
arguing. At some point, Heckstall took T.C. to an apartment next door, which
belonged to Heckstall’s cousin. The couple continued arguing. Heckstall
slapped T.C. and grabbed her by the throat, slammed her against the wall, and
squeezed her throat until she could not breathe. He then went to the kitchen to
retrieve a knife. When he returned to T.C., he held the knife against her body
and acted like he was going to stab her in the stomach. Heckstall proceeded to
put his hand up T.C.’s dress and touch her vagina over her underwear, put his
1
Ind. Code § 35-42-3-2(a).
2
Ind. Code § 35-45-2-1(a)(1).
3
I.C. § 35-42-2-2(a).
4
Ind. Code § 35-47-4-3(b).
5
I.C. § 35-42-2-9.
6
I.C. § 35-42-4-1(a)(1).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1709-CR-2158 | March 15, 2018 Page 2 of 7
fingers inside her vagina, and force her to perform and receive oral sex and
sexual intercourse.
[3] Afterwards, Heckstall and T.C. returned to their apartment. T.C. wanted to
leave and started to pack, but Heckstall became angry, went to the closet, and
got a gun. He held the gun to her head and her back while he made her go back
to his cousin’s apartment. Eventually, Heckstall calmed down and the two
returned to their apartment. One of T.C.’s children called the police.
[4] Crime scene specialist Andrea Pierce investigated the crime scene. She went to
Heckstall’s cousin’s apartment, where she found a knife in the kitchen and a
firearm in the furnace closet. The firearm had a round in the chamber and
bullets in the magazine.
[5] On July 29, 2016, the State charged Heckstall with seven felonies. Heckstall’s
jury trial took place on July 13-14, 2017. At the beginning of the trial, Heckstall
asked for a continuance to review a crime lab packet that he had received from
the State at approximately 4:50 p.m. on July 12, the day before trial. The
prosecutor explained that although she had requested the lab packet about a
week before the trial, a crime lab employee had overlooked her request, so the
prosecutor did not receive it until around noon on July 12. The prosecutor was
preparing witnesses at that time, and said that as soon as that preparation was
complete, she “went straight on over to [defense counsel]’s office so that
[defense counsel] could redepose” T.C. Tr. Vol. II p. 5. Another deposition of
T.C. took place for about one and one-half hours.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1709-CR-2158 | March 15, 2018 Page 3 of 7
[6] The prosecutor then stated that she had gone through the new lab packet and
that it contained no new information, but instead, it was an extension of a
crime lab report that Pierce had prepared and that had been provided to the
defense earlier in the case. The prosecutor stated that the new lab packet
contained crime scene diagrams and measurements, but that the State would
not be introducing those documents into evidence at trial. The prosecutor
acknowledged that the discovery was late, but noted that she received it late,
too.
[7] The trial court noted that the new lab packet included a laboratory examination
report, laboratory notes, and a chain of custody report. It also included a
compact disc that contained the full crime lab report that had already been
discovered. Defense counsel asked for twenty-four hours to evaluate the new
packet so that she would not be ineffective on behalf of Heckstall. The trial
court ordered a recess, during which Heckstall had the opportunity to examine
the packet, including the compact disc.
[8] Following the recess, Heckstall stated that reviewing the lab packet was useful
and that it included information that was in his favor and “particularly
interesting, particularly about where things were found.” Id. at 13. The trial
court noted that Pierce’s initial lab report and another lab report had been
discovered in August 2016. The prosecutor stated that Pierce’s initial lab report
detailed the location of where the knife and gun were recovered. The trial court
then denied Heckstall’s motion for a continuance and asked the State to make
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1709-CR-2158 | March 15, 2018 Page 4 of 7
Pierce available for the defense to talk to before Pierce testified. The prosecutor
replied that Pierce would be present that afternoon.
[9] The case proceeded to trial, and the jury found Heckstall guilty as charged.
On August 25, 2017, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of fifty
years. Heckstall now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[10] Heckstall argues solely that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a
continuance. Trial courts have broad discretion in dealing with discovery
violations by the State in the alleged late disclosure of evidence to the defense.
Alcantar v. State, 70 N.E.3d 353, 356 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). We may reverse the
trial court’s decision regarding an alleged violation only if the trial court’s
decision involved clear error and resulted in prejudice. Id. When a party has
failed to comply with discovery procedures, “the trial court is usually in the best
position to determine the dictates of fundamental fairness and whether any
resulting harm can be eliminated or satisfactorily alleviated.” Wells v. State, 848
N.E.2d 1133, 1143 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), opinion corrected on reh’g, 853 N.E.2d
143 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). A continuance is usually the proper remedy for a
discovery violation. Id. Although the withholding of material evidence by the
prosecution may present grounds for reversal, an appellant must affirmatively
show that there was error prejudicial to his substantial rights before reversal is
warranted. Id. at 92.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1709-CR-2158 | March 15, 2018 Page 5 of 7
[11] Here, the prosecutor received the lab packet at approximately noon on the day
before the trial. She was preparing witnesses at that time, and as soon as that
preparation was complete, she took the lab packet to Heckstall. In other words,
she took the lab packet to Heckstall at her earliest convenience. No error
occurs when the State provides a defendant evidence as soon as the State is in
possession of requested evidence. Warren v. State, 725 N.E.2d 828, 832-33 (Ind.
2000). The lab packet contained no material new information, but rather was
an extension of Pierce’s crime lab report, which had already been discovered.
Although Heckstall argues that Pierce’s notes in the new packet “regarding the
location of certain items of evidence could have played a significant role in
questioning the credibility of T.C.,” appellant’s br. p. 8, Pierce’s crime lab
report that had already been provided included the locations where the knife
and gun were recovered. Heckstall does not specify what or how information
in the late-discovered packet could have helped his defense.
[12] Further, after Heckstall received the lab packet, he spent one and one-half hours
re-deposing T.C. Before the presentation of evidence at trial, the trial court
ordered a recess during which Heckstall had the opportunity to examine the lab
packet. The trial court asked the State to make Pierce available for the defense
to talk to before she testified, and the State said that Pierce would be present
that afternoon. The only new information in the packet was diagrams and
measurements, and the State said that it did not plan to use that information
during trial. Heckstall had all the relevant information before trial, including
Pierce’s crime lab report, and had been able to depose Pierce before trial. In
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1709-CR-2158 | March 15, 2018 Page 6 of 7
short, the State did not withhold any material evidence from Heckstall, and
Heckstall has not shown that he was prejudiced by the late discovery of the lab
packet. The trial court did not err by denying Heckstall’s motion for a
continuance.
[13] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1709-CR-2158 | March 15, 2018 Page 7 of 7