holding that consideration of defendant’s admitted sexual activity with child murder victim was not improper because “relevant evidence of another crime is admissible to rebut the defendant’s claimed lack of criminal history even if that evidence may not be sufficient to support a conviction”
How later courts described this case
- holding that consideration of defendant’s admitted sexual activity with child murder victim was not improper because “relevant evidence of another crime is admissible to rebut the defendant’s claimed lack of criminal history even if that evidence may not be sufficient to support a conviction”
- concluding that the evidence supported the conclusion that Wilkes did not unequivocally assert his right to remain silent where, after each of Wilkes’s purported attempts to end the interrogation, he continued to speak with the detective
- concluding that Wilkes’s statements were voluntary where he did not argue on appeal that he was unaware of what he was saying when giving the statements and officers testified he did not appear intoxicated
- holding that although Indiana Trial Rule 49 abolished special verdict forms, use of the form is necessitated by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution as interpreted by Apprendi and Ring
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DICKSON, Justice,
concurring in result.
I concur except with respect to the Court's departure from Roche v. State, 596 N.E.2d 896 (Ind.1992), and its progeny. I continue to believe that a jury's inability to reach a unanimous sentencing recommendation is logically unrelated to the defendant's conduct or personal cireumstances and thus is irrelevant as a consideration in determining the appropriate sentence for a defendant.