# Wilkes v. State

> Indiana Supreme Court · December 10, 2009 · 917 N.E.2d 675

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9504974

## Case

- **Full name:** Danny Ray WILKES, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below)
- **Court:** Indiana Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 10, 2009
- **Citations:** 917 N.E.2d 675; 2009 Ind. LEXIS 1516; 2009 WL 4722388
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Dickson
- **Judges:** Boehm, Dickson, Rucker, Shepard, Sullivan
- **Cited by:** 97 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9504974

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 suppo…
- 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
- noting that it may be appropriate for Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2744 | August 28, 2019 Page 10 of 14 the trial court to assess the defendant’s demeanor in determining the voluntariness of his prior statements

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9504974. Public record. Not legal advice.