GERMANY v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Following a bench trial at which Rashaad Chavez Germany was tried in absentia, he was convicted of Class A misdemeanor unlawful use of 911 services. On appeal, Germany presents two issues for our review:

1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it tried him in absentia?

2. Is the evidence sufficient to support his conviction?

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] On March 14, 2024, Detective Spencer Case of the McCordsville Police Department was dispatched to investigate “an incomplete 911.” Transcript Vol. II at 9. Detective Case went to the area and, because he did not have a precise location, called the number associated with the incomplete 911 call. Germany answered and provided Detective Case with an apartment number. Detective Case went to the apartment and encountered Germany, who advised Detective Case that he called 911 because “he was playing a joke on his friend.” Id. at 10. Detective Case did not observe anyone in need of any type of emergency assistance.

[4] On March 18, 2024, the State charged Germany with Class A misdemeanor unlawful use of 911 service. A pretrial conference was held on May 15, 2024, at which time Germany appeared pro se and requested a trial, which the trial court set for August 12, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. The court also advised Germany: “If you'll see the lady next to me, she'll give you a note reminding you of that date and time.” Transcript Vol. II at 4.

[5] On August 12, Germany failed to appear.¹ After noting on the record that Germany was present when the bench trial was set, the court proceeded with trial in absentia at the State's request. At the conclusion of the State's evidence, the court found Germany guilty as charged. The court called the matter for sentencing and, because Germany was not present, issued a warrant for his arrest for failure to appear. Germany was arrested on August 13.

[6] On August 14, 2024, Germany was brought before the trial court for sentencing. The court advised Germany that because he did not appear for the bench trial, he was tried in absentia and found guilty as charged. Germany told the court that he “got some dates mixed up.” Id. at 14. The matter proceeded to sentencing, at which time Germany apologized to the court, stating again that he had mixed up some dates and had appeared on August 13 for the bench trial. The trial court then sentenced Germany to 180 days in the Hancock County Jail. Germany now appeals. Additional evidence will be provided as necessary.

Discussion & Decision

1. Trial in absentia

[7] Germany maintains that he did not knowingly or voluntarily waive his right to be present at his trial and argues that the trial court therefore erred in trying him in absentia. We review a trial court's decision in this regard for an abuse of discretion. Calvert v. State, 14 N.E.3d 818, 821 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or if the court misapplies the law. Id.

[8] A defendant in a criminal proceeding has a right to be present at all stages of his trial. U.S. Const. Amend. VI; Ind. Const. Art. I, § 13; Fennell v. State, 492 N.E.2d 297, 299 (Ind. 1986). A defendant may waive this right and be tried in absentia if the trial court determines that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived that right. Lampkins v. State, 682 N.E.2d 1268, 1273 (Ind. 1997) (citing Freeman v. State, 541 N.E.2d 533, 535 (Ind. 1989); Fennell, 492 N.E.2d at 299). The best evidence that a defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his or her right to be present at trial is the “defendant's presence in court on the day the matter is set for trial.” Fennell, 492 N.E.2d at 299 (citing Brown v. State, 390 N.E.2d 1058 (1979)). We have therefore held that a trial court may presume that a defendant waived his right to be present and may try him in absentia upon a showing that the defendant knew the scheduled trial date but failed to appear. Smith v. State, 160 N.E.3d 1152 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021); Soliz v. State, 832 N.E.2d 1022 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied.

[9] Nonetheless, where a defendant has been tried in absentia, the defendant “must be afforded an opportunity to explain his absence and thereby rebut the initial presumption of waiver.” Brown, 839 N.E.2d 225, 227-28 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (quoting Ellis v. State, 525 N.E.2d 610, 612 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987)), trans. denied. “As a reviewing court, we consider the entire record to determine whether the defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his right to be present at trial.” Soliz, 832 N.E.2d at 1029. Thus, we can consider the defendant's explanation of his absence in deciding whether it was error to try to the defendant in absentia. Calvert, 14 N.E.3d at 822.

[10] Germany does not deny that he was present in court when his bench trial was scheduled and that he was aware of the date. He maintains, however, that his absence was inadvertent as he made a calendaring mistake, citing as evidence thereof his claim that he appeared for his bench trial the day after the scheduled date. He offered no other justification for his absence at that time.² The court was not required to credit Germany's self-serving explanation as to why he did not appear for the bench trial. See Thompson v. State, 804 N.E.2d 1146, 1149 (Ind. 2004) (stating “[a]s a general rule, factfinders are not required to believe a witness's testimony even when it is uncontradicted”). Furthermore, we observe that Germany later offered the trial court an entirely different explanation for missing his trial, namely that he could not drive to court due to a July surgery. This record does not rebut the presumption that his absence was knowing and voluntary, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in trying him in absentia.

2. Sufficiency

[11] Germany argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we neither reweigh the evidence nor reassess the credibility of the witnesses. Hall v. State, 177 N.E.3d 1183, 1191 (Ind. 2021). Rather, we consider the evidence most favorable to the verdict and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom. Willis v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1065, 1066 (Ind. 2015). We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable factfinder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. New v. State, 135 N.E.3d 619, 624 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).

[12] In challenging his conviction, Germany first argues that there was no evidence that he placed the call to 911. Germany is simply requesting this court to reweigh the evidence. Detective Case was dispatched to investigate an incomplete 911 call. He testified that he called the number from which the incomplete 911 call was made, and Germany answered the phone and gave him an apartment number. Detective Case then encountered Germany who told him that he had called 911 as “a joke on his friend.” Transcript Vol. II at 10. It can reasonably be inferred from Germany's statement to Detective Case that Germany knowingly or intentionally placed a 911 call for a purpose other than obtaining public safety assistance or emergency services or to avoid communications service charges or fees. See Ind. Code § 36-8-16.7-46 (defining crime of misuse of 911 service). Germany also argues that there is no evidence that he “spoke” with the 911 dispatcher. Appellant's Brief at 14. This, however, is not an element required by statute. The evidence is sufficient to support Germany's conviction.

[13] Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   On July 2, 2024, the State filed a motion to revoke Germany's bond in the instant matter, alleging that Germany had committed a new criminal offense, i.e., Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended. The matter was initially set for hearing for August 11, 2024, which was a Sunday. The same day, a correction was made to reschedule the State's motion for Monday, August 12, 2024, the same day as the bench trial. The chronological case summary indicates that notice of such hearing was issued to Germany.

2.   In subsequent filings with the court, Germany claimed that he did not appear for the scheduled trial date because a medical issue prevented him from driving. We observe, however, that the medical paperwork he submitted to the court stated that he could not drive for two weeks after a July 3, 2024 surgery, which would not have disqualified him from driving on August 12, 2024. In any event, we have before found that transportation issues do not excuse a failure to appear before the court. See Lusinger v. State, 153 N.E.3d 1162, 1167 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (affirming a trial court's decision to hold a defendant's trial in absentia when a defendant made no attempt to contact the court or his attorney, but later attributed his absence on the day of trial to transportation issues); Soliz, 832 N.E.2d at 1029 (affirming conviction of defendant tried in absentia despite his claim that his failure to attend the second day of trial was because, among other things, his car would not start).

Altice, Chief Judge.

Vaidik, J. and Scheele, J., concur.