« Vacancy on COA 2015 - Gov. Pence selects Marion Co. Judge Altice for Court of Appeals | Main | Courts - "Judge Kozinski on prosecutorial misconduct" »

Friday, July 17, 2015

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 opinion(s) today (and 4 NFP memorandum decisions)

For publication opinions today (1):

In David C. Ennik v. State of Indiana , a 24-page opinion, Judge Riley writes:

Appellant-Defendant, David C. Ennik (Ennik), appeals his conviction for one Count of child molesting as a Class A felony, Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(a)(1) (2012); and two Counts of child molesting as Class C felonies, I.C. § 35-42-4-3(b) (2012). We affirm.

ISSUES. Ennik raises two issues on appeal, which we restate as follows: (1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Ennik’s motion for severance; and (2) Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting hearsay evidence.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY[1] * * *

I. Joinder/Severance * * *

It is well established that offenses can “be linked by a defendant’s efforts to take advantage of his special relationship with the victims.” * * * In the present case, Ennik “exploited his position” as a babysitter by molesting three young females entrusted to his care. Pierce, 29 N.E.3d at 1266. Furthermore, Ennik’s “method was consistent.” * * * Accordingly, the trial court correctly found that joinder was proper under both subsection 9(a)(1) and 9(a)(2); thus, Ennik was not entitled to severance as a matter of right.

II. Admission of Hearsay * * *

Under all of these facts and circumstances, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting K.N.’s and M.W.’s statements to Mother and their recorded interviews with FCM Garrett and Detective Cale.

CONCLUSION. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court acted within its discretion in denying Ennik’s motion for severance, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the hearsay statements of Mother and the recorded interviews with FCM Garrett and Detective Cale. Affirmed.
______________
[1] In accordance with the revised Administrative Rule 9(G), certain evidence was submitted to our court which is declared confidential and must be excluded from public access. See Ind. Administrative Rule 9(G)(2). Despite the fact that the parties have only partially complied with the Administrative Rule, we have endeavored to maintain confidentiality on appeal. However, as a number of facts derived from the confidential records are “essential to the resolution of litigation[,]” we have included confidential information in this decision only to the extent necessary to resolve this appeal. Admin. R. 9(G)(7)(a)(ii)(c).

NFP civil decisions today (0):

NFP criminal decisions today (4):

Jason M. Drinsky v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Curtis D. Keplinger v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Kevin J. Mamon v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Thomas Daniel Sayre v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on July 17, 2015 11:01 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions