Preview:

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 judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

FILED
Jun 21 2012, 9:10 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: PETER D. TODD Elkhart, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana KARL M. SCHARNBERG Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
FERNANDO PADILLA-ROMO, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 20A05-1107-CR-426

APPEAL FROM THE ELKHART SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Evan S. Roberts, Judge The Honorable Dean O. Burton, Magistrate Cause No. 20D01-1006-FD-121

June 21, 2012

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

KIRSCH, Judge

Following a jury trial, Fernando Padilla-Romo appeals his conviction for domestic battery in the presence of a minor1 as a Class D felony. He raises two issues, which we restate as: I. Whether the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during trial that prevented Padilla-Romo from receiving a fair trial; and Whether the trial court properly quashed Padilla-Romo's subpoena to the county's elected prosecutor.

II.

We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In June 2010, Darla Koewers, then nineteen years old, was residing at her mother's home in Elkhart, Indiana. At that time, Koewers and Padilla-Romo had two children together, ages fifteen months and four months. By agreement of Koewers and Padilla-Romo, the children were living primarily with Padilla-Romo at his Elkhart apartment, but Koewers could see them regularly and essentially at any time she desired. On the afternoon of June 6, 2010, Padilla-Romo brought the children to Koewers at her mother's residence. He wanted her to come with him back to his apartment to spend time with the children there.2 However, at that time, Koewers had a medical condition that prevented her from lifting anything over ten pounds, and because Padilla-Romo planned to not be present at the apartment, she would be there alone with the children and could not lift them or take care of them. Thus, she was unwilling to go to the apartment. The two argued

1

See Ind. Code

Download Fernando Padilla-Romo v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law