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
Aug 06 2008, 9:55 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: CHRISTOPHER A. CAGE Anderson, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana JOBY JERRELLS Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
JULIE D. HAYDEN, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 29A04-0801-CR-36

APPEAL FROM THE HAMILTON SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable J. Richard Campbell, Judge Cause No. 29D04-0612-CM-7739

August 6, 2008 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION BAILEY, Judge

Case Summary Appellant-Defendant Julie D. Hayden appeals her conviction for Prostitution, as a Class A misdemeanor. 1 We affirm. Issue Hayden raises three issues, which we consolidate and restate as whether the trial court's admission of evidence regarding Hayden's post-arrest silence as impeachment evidence violated her right to Due Process. Facts and Procedural History On December 6, 2005, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officer John Daggy, a supervisor of the vice unit, drove to Studio North Massage Parlor in Hamilton County to assist Hamilton County law enforcement with an investigation of local massage parlors for prostitution. When Officer Daggy entered the Studio North parlor and asked for a massage, he was introduced to Hayden, who would perform the massage. Officer Daggy paid Hayden sixty dollars, representing the price of the massage and a fifteen-dollar tip. Once in the massage room, Hayden instructed Officer Daggy to get undressed when she left the room. While Hayden was out of the room, Officer Daggy placed a couple of twenty-dollar bills in the room's tip jar, undressed, and positioned himself facedown on the table, covering his midsection with the towel provided. Upon her return, Officer Daggy asked Hayden if she would perform a sensual or topless massage. Hayden said yes, but that it would cost an additional twenty dollars. Officer Daggy paid Hayden. She then took off her top and began

1

Ind. Code

Download Julie D. Hayden v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law