1 STATE OF INDIANA IN THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT SS: CRIMINAL DIVISION, ROOM 21 COUNTY OF MARION CAUSE NO. 49-G FD STATE OF INDIANA v. DANNY LEFLORE STATES REQUEST TO USE OUT OF COURT STATEMENTS (FORFEITURE BY WRONGDOING Comes now the State of Indiana by its Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Megan Singleton, and files this Motion to allow out of court statements made to the police officers and to Department of Child Services agent(s by the alleged victim, Santana Tolden, and State s witness, Bessie Bland, and in support of the same, alleges as follows: 1. Procedurally, this cause is a re-file of charges originally levied against Defendant under 49G FD Those charges were dismissed on September 14, 2010, because the predecessor Court (Marion Superior Court, Criminal Division, Room 17; Hon. Clark Rogers, Judge denied the State s motion for forfeiture by wrongdoing without affording the State an opportunity to be heard on the motion. However, subsequent to the dismissal, on March 3, 2011, the Indiana Court of Appeals, via unpublished opinion under Case Number 49A CR-698, reversed the Court 17 ruling. Attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit 1 is a copy of the subject Court of Appeals decision, as well as the Court s subsequent opinion upon rehearing. 2. Defendant, Danny Leflore, is charged with Count 1: Battery on Child (with Injury, a Class D Felony; Count 2: Battery, a Class A Misdemeanor; and Count 3: Criminal Recklessness, a Class B Misdemeanor. Defendant was
2 originally arrested on June 15, Defendant had an initial hearing under cause 49-G FD on June 21, 2010, and was held in the Corrections Corporation of America ( CCA facility (a/k/a Marion County Jail II during the pendency of that cause. 3. At the initial hearing on June 21, 2010 (in relevant part, Defendant was ordered to have no contact with the alleged victim, Santana Tolden. 4. On August 4, 2010, Defendant, by notice, set taped statements for witness, Bessie Bland, and alleged victim, Santana Tolden. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Austin Shadle had both notices sent to Ms. Bland (Santana s grandmother, because said counsel believed the Department of Child Services had placed Santana with his grandmother on an emergency basis. However, both Ms. Bland and Santana failed to appear at the August 4, 2010 taped statement. Afterward, DPA Austin Shadle received returned envelopes from the U.S. Postal Service with an indication that Ms. Bland no longer lived at the same address. 5. Therefore, Defendant reset the taped statements for August 18, And so, DPA Austin Shadle had Santana and his mother, Rochelle Tolden, hand served with subpoenas for Santana to attend the taped statement. Ms. Tolden was hand served with subpoenas by Department of Child Services Family Case Manager, Marianne Teixeira, and IMPD Detective, Julie Dutrieux. However, on August 18, 2010, Santana and his mother, Ms. Tolden, failed to appear for the second time.
3 6. Recorded telephone calls from Defendant, Danny Leflore, to Rochelle Tolden were researched, and DPA Shadle discovered Defendant had violated the no contact order (by indirect contact with the adult witness, Bessie Bland (Rochelle Tolden s mother, Santana s grandmother. Additionally, the telephone conversations reveal that Defendant and Rochelle Tolden had conspired to make sure Bessie Bland did not come to Court and testify as a witness for the State. The State incorporates herein the following transcript [June 29, 2010]: Defendant: But this is all this is the whole thing: I go to court, back to court, August 17th. Defendant: If your momma and Tana Man don t come to Court, cause the lawyer already said, I go to Court August 17th and the 24th. If your momma and Tana Man Rochelle Tolden: So, tell her, Don t go to court? Defendant: Yeah! Don t just don t stay the fuck away from down here around them, around them days. Just be over at Dora s or some-mother-fuckinwhere. As long as her and Tana Man aint here in court on the 17th Rochelle Tolden: They don t got an address for her anyway. Mommy s movin again. They don t got an address for her. So, you don t gotta worry about that [ ] Defendant: We don t we don t we don t need no attorney all all your momma as long as your momma and Tana Man aint here Rochelle Tolden: I m gonna make sure of that! And I aint going even [indiscernible] me not come either, right?
4 Defendant: Yeah, it don t matter about you comin. Well, it does, but you don t really got to. Just make sure you got them some other place. Rochelle Tolden: We be gone, right. Shit, we goin out of town for that weekend. Shit, they don t know. Defendant: Yep. Cause if they aint here on the 17th and the 24th, they can t he said they ll, on the 26th, they ll just drop it. [and on August 19, 2010]: Rochelle Tolden: I had to have Mommy [Bessie Bland] go and take Onnie to the clinic. Defendant: You gotta keep her the fuck the away from over there, man, til this shit is over, man! I keep tellin you that! Rochelle Tolden: I know that, but I had to have her go to the clinic, because the lady is not rescheduling. They got a phone. She knows not to come here. Defendant: You gotta keep this muther fuckin shit [indiscernible] 7. Additionally, DPA Austin Shadle discovered Defendant had violated the no contact order (by indirect contact with the child victim, Santana Tolden. Attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit 2 is a partial transcription of the relevant phone conversations between Defendant and Rochelle Tolden (with emphasis added to certain portions of the transcript. Indeed, Defendant s explicit directives for Ms. Tolden to talk to Santana on Defendant s behalf were a violation of the Court s pre-trial no contact order. Additionally, Defendant s actions amounted to obstruction of justice; and therefore, Defendant should not be able to benefit from conspiring with Ms.
5 Tolden to either prevent Santana from appearing in court, or if he must appear, to make Santana shut down. 8. Based upon Defendant s misdeeds, on September 7, 2010, the Defendant was charged under cause 49-G FD with Obstruction of Justice, a Class D Felony, and Invasion of Privacy, a Class A Misdemeanor. Attached here to and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibits 3 and 4 are copies of the Court 16 Probable Cause Affidavit and Charging Information, respectively. 9. On May 19, 2010, the Defendant was found guilty at a bench trial of all counts under cause 49-G FD Attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit 5 is a copy of the Court 16 Abstract of Judgment finding Defendant guilty of these charges. 10. The State requests forfeiture, by Defendant s wrong-doing, of Defendant s rights which he may hold under the following: (1 Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (and/or similar confrontation rights under the Indiana Constitution; (2. protections under the Indiana Rules of Evidence which may otherwise deem the evidence inadmissible; and (3. any other procedural rule (including local rules, statute, common law or other bar or protection afforded Defendant in this matter. The State believes Defendant s Sixth Amendment Right is of the highest, most important right or protection at issue. Therefore, if the State prevails on its forfeiture motion of Defendant s Sixth Amendment Right, all lesser rights are also forfeited. 11. Pursuant to the decisions in Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008; Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004, Fowler v. State, 829 N.E.2d 459 (Ind. 2005, cert.denied, 547 U.S. 1193
6 (2006, Roberts v. State, 842 N.E.2d 1018 (Ind.Ct.App. 2008, and Boyd v. State, 866 N.E.2d 855 (Ind.Ct.App. 2007, the State would request the court permit the State of Indiana to use witness statements made to Department of Child Services investigator, Kenneth Appleby, and police officers about Defendant on the day of the alleged incident. The Defendant has forfeited his 6th Amendment right to confront witnesses against him, and has waived any such objections of admissibility under the Indiana Rules of Evidence, because he has committed the crimes of invasion of privacy and obstruction of justice, and Defendant s devious conduct was designed to prevent State s witnesses, Bessie Bland and Santana Tolden from testifying against him. WHEREFORE, the State of Indiana respectfully requests that this motion be granted and that any and all appropriate orders be issued by the Court. Respectfully submitted, Megan Singleton, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Domestic Violence Division MARION COUNTY PROSECUTOR S OFFICE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE UNIT 251 East Ohio Street, Suite 160 Indianapolis, IN Phone: ( Fax: (
7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon counsel of record, postage pre-paid U.S. First Class Mail to:, by: personal service (or service in open Court. placing in the public defender s mailbox on, Megan Singleton
8 STATE OF INDIANA IN THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT SS: CRIMINAL DIVISION, ROOM 21 COUNTY OF MARION CAUSE NO. 49-G FD STATE OF INDIANA v. DANNY LEFLORE ORDER The Court having read and carefully considered same, now finds that said Motion should be and is hereby Granted. Denied Set for Hearing on So ordered this day of,2011. Distribution: State of Indiana: Megan Singleton Defense Attorney of Record: Kevin Lawrence Judge, Marion Superior Court Criminal Division, Room G21
General District Courts To Understand Your Visit to Court You Should Know: It is the courts wish that you know your rights and duties. We want every person who comes here to receive fair treatment in accordance
Instructions for Sealing a Criminal Record (Expungement) TABLE OF CONTENTS What is Expungement/Sealing of Record?... 1 Why Get an Expungement?...1 Who Can Use This Packet?...1 Can I Get My Record Expunged?...2
CLEARING YOUR CRIMINAL RECORD A GUIDE TO OBTAINING AN EXPUNGEMENT IN ALLEGHENY COUNTY 1 CLEARING YOUR CRIMINAL RECORD A Guide on How to Obtain an Expungement in Allegheny County WORD OF CAUTION: The laws
YOUR RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES AS A CRIME VICTIM AND WITNESS This brochure is made available to you courtesy of the Nevada Advisory Council for Prosecuting Attorneys, the Nevada District Attorneys Association,
A TENANT S GUIDE TO THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING COURT The Association of the Bar of the City of New York Housing Court Public Service Projects Committee and The Civil Court of the City of New York Fern A.
MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res
People v. Tamika Monique Palmer. 14PDJ049. March 26, 2015. Following a sanctions hearing, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred Tamika Monique Palmer (Attorney Registration Number 42046). The disbarment
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA If You Paid Overdraft Fees to M&T Bank, You May Be Eligible for a Payment from a Class Action Settlement. A federal court authorized this
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING If You Are a Washington Health Care Provider or a Washington PIP Insured of a USAA Company, and Your Health Care Bills Were Reduced Based on an
Small Claims Handbook A Guide for Non-Lawyers Spring 2011 Revision Published by the Colorado Judicial Branch Written by Diane Vaksdal Smith, Esq. Originally published by the Denver Bar Association This
Law & The Courts Resource Guide - what to do in case of an auto accident - your rights in traffic court - your rights if arrested table of contents What To Do In Case Of An Auto Accident...1 Your Rights
TAKE THIS BOOK DEFENDANT AND FAMILY HANDBOOK Provided by: The Office of the Metropolitan Public Defender 404 James Robertson Parkway Suite 2022, Parkway Towers Nashville, TN 37219 615-862-5730 Dawn Deaner,
ENEZ BALTHAZAR, : UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-cv-1136 (SMO) vs. : ATLANTIC CITY MEDICAL CENTER,: ATLANTIC CITY MEDICAL CENTER COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES,
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS Swaray E. Conteh The Law Office of Swaray Conteh, LLC Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Gregory F. Zoeller Attorney General of Indiana Brian Reitz Deputy Attorney General
Do-it-Yourself Recovery of Unpaid Wages How to Represent Yourself Before the California Labor Commissioner A Publication of: The Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center 600 Harrison Street, Suite 120 San
Uncontested Divorce Booklet For Uncontested Divorces Without Children Under 21 Instructions and Practice Forms New York State Unified Court System This instruction booklet and official divorce forms are
CAUSE NO. 02-01125-J CHARLES DURHAM IN THE 191ST DISTRICT COURT VS. LARVAN PERAILTA DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF S MOTION TO RECOVER EXPENSES OF PROOF TO THE HONORABLE COURT: Comes Now, Charles Durham,
An initiative supported by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation www.macfound.org The Juvenile Justice System: A GUIDE FOR FAMILIES IN ILLINOIS This publication was prepared for the Illinois
Filed 2/24/15 P. v. Velasco-Palacios CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE February 15, 2011 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. KRISTIE M. SMITH Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County No. 86588 Richard Baumgartner,
Florida s DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BENCHBOOK September 2008 Office of the State Courts Administrator This project was supported by Grant No. 2007-WF-AX-0062 awarded by the Violence Against Women Grants Office,
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Jude Ambe, Misc. Docket AG No. 6, Sept. Term 2011. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE A REPRIMAND IS THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF MRPC 5.5 (UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE
Understanding the Civil Involuntary Commitment Process About the Author By D. Renée Hildebrant http://www.okbar.org/obj/articles_05/021205.htm Oklahoma Bar Journal D. Renée Hildebrant is the trial court
Victims Witnesses Handbook www.sheriff.org VICTIMS & WITNESSES HANDBOOK Referral Telephone Numbers The Broward Sheriff s Office (BSO) will be as helpful as possible to you during the progress of your case.
Class Notice of Proposed Settlement IN THE MONTANA EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, CASCADE COUNTY If Allstate Paid You for an Automobile Bodily Injury Claim, You May Be Entitled to Money from a Proposed
Supporting victims and witnesses with a learning disability July 2009 Contents Introduction page 2 The Crown Prosecution Service page 5 The Code for Crown Prosecutors page 8 Ability to give evidence page