Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1709-CR-2158 | March 15, 2018 Page 1 of 7

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Denise L. Turner

DTurner Legal LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Monika Prekopa Talbot

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Xavier Heckstall,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

March 15, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A04-1709-CR-2158

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Stanley E. Kroh, 

Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

49G03-1607-F1-29330

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1709-CR-2158 | March 15, 2018 Page 2 of 7

[1] Xavier Heckstall was convicted of Level 3 Felony Kidnapping,1 Level 6 Felony 

Intimidation,2 Level 6 Felony Criminal Recklessness,3 Level 6 Felony Pointing 

a Firearm,4 Level 6 Felony Strangulation,5 and two counts of Level 1 Felony 

Rape.6 He appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion for 

a continuance. Finding no error, we affirm.

Facts

[2] Heckstall, T.C., and T.C.’s three children lived together in a three-bedroom 

apartment in Indianapolis. On July 26, 2016, Heckstall and T.C. began 

arguing. At some point, Heckstall took T.C. to an apartment next door, which 

belonged to Heckstall’s cousin. The couple continued arguing. Heckstall 

slapped T.C. and grabbed her by the throat, slammed her against the wall, and 

squeezed her throat until she could not breathe. He then went to the kitchen to 

retrieve a knife. When he returned to T.C., he held the knife against her body 

and acted like he was going to stab her in the stomach. Heckstall proceeded to 

put his hand up T.C.’s dress and touch her vagina over her underwear, put his 

 

1

Ind. Code § 35-42-3-2(a).

2

Ind. Code § 35-45-2-1(a)(1).

3

I.C. § 35-42-2-2(a).

4

Ind. Code § 35-47-4-3(b).

5

I.C. § 35-42-2-9.

6

I.C. § 35-42-4-1(a)(1).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1709-CR-2158 | March 15, 2018 Page 3 of 7

fingers inside her vagina, and force her to perform and receive oral sex and 

sexual intercourse.

[3] Afterwards, Heckstall and T.C. returned to their apartment. T.C. wanted to 

leave and started to pack, but Heckstall became angry, went to the closet, and 

got a gun. He held the gun to her head and her back while he made her go back 

to his cousin’s apartment. Eventually, Heckstall calmed down and the two 

returned to their apartment. One of T.C.’s children called the police. 

[4] Crime scene specialist Andrea Pierce investigated the crime scene. She went to 

Heckstall’s cousin’s apartment, where she found a knife in the kitchen and a 

firearm in the furnace closet. The firearm had a round in the chamber and 

bullets in the magazine. 

[5] On July 29, 2016, the State charged Heckstall with seven felonies. Heckstall’s

jury trial took place on July 13-14, 2017. At the beginning of the trial, Heckstall 

asked for a continuance to review a crime lab packet that he had received from 

the State at approximately 4:50 p.m. on July 12, the day before trial. The 

prosecutor explained that although she had requested the lab packet about a 

week before the trial, a crime lab employee had overlooked her request, so the 

prosecutor did not receive it until around noon on July 12. The prosecutor was 

preparing witnesses at that time, and said that as soon as that preparation was 

complete, she “went straight on over to [defense counsel]’s office so that 

[defense counsel] could redepose” T.C. Tr. Vol. II p. 5. Another deposition of 

T.C. took place for about one and one-half hours.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1709-CR-2158 | March 15, 2018 Page 4 of 7

[6] The prosecutor then stated that she had gone through the new lab packet and 

that it contained no new information, but instead, it was an extension of a 

crime lab report that Pierce had prepared and that had been provided to the 

defense earlier in the case. The prosecutor stated that the new lab packet 

contained crime scene diagrams and measurements, but that the State would 

not be introducing those documents into evidence at trial. The prosecutor 

acknowledged that the discovery was late, but noted that she received it late, 

too.

[7] The trial court noted that the new lab packet included a laboratory examination 

report, laboratory notes, and a chain of custody report. It also included a 

compact disc that contained the full crime lab report that had already been 

discovered. Defense counsel asked for twenty-four hours to evaluate the new 

packet so that she would not be ineffective on behalf of Heckstall. The trial 

court ordered a recess, during which Heckstall had the opportunity to examine 

the packet, including the compact disc.

[8] Following the recess, Heckstall stated that reviewing the lab packet was useful 

and that it included information that was in his favor and “particularly 

interesting, particularly about where things were found.” Id. at 13. The trial 

court noted that Pierce’s initial lab report and another lab report had been 

discovered in August 2016. The prosecutor stated that Pierce’s initial lab report 

detailed the location of where the knife and gun were recovered. The trial court 

then denied Heckstall’s motion for a continuance and asked the State to make 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1709-CR-2158 | March 15, 2018 Page 5 of 7

Pierce available for the defense to talk to before Pierce testified. The prosecutor 

replied that Pierce would be present that afternoon. 

[9] The case proceeded to trial, and the jury found Heckstall guilty as charged. 

On August 25, 2017, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of fifty 

years. Heckstall now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[10] Heckstall argues solely that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a 

continuance. Trial courts have broad discretion in dealing with discovery 

violations by the State in the alleged late disclosure of evidence to the defense. 

Alcantar v. State, 70 N.E.3d 353, 356 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). We may reverse the 

trial court’s decision regarding an alleged violation only if the trial court’s 

decision involved clear error and resulted in prejudice. Id. When a party has 

failed to comply with discovery procedures, “the trial court is usually in the best 

position to determine the dictates of fundamental fairness and whether any 

resulting harm can be eliminated or satisfactorily alleviated.” Wells v. State, 848 

N.E.2d 1133, 1143 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), opinion corrected on reh’g, 853 N.E.2d 

143 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). A continuance is usually the proper remedy for a 

discovery violation. Id. Although the withholding of material evidence by the 

prosecution may present grounds for reversal, an appellant must affirmatively 

show that there was error prejudicial to his substantial rights before reversal is 

warranted. Id. at 92.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1709-CR-2158 | March 15, 2018 Page 6 of 7

[11] Here, the prosecutor received the lab packet at approximately noon on the day 

before the trial. She was preparing witnesses at that time, and as soon as that 

preparation was complete, she took the lab packet to Heckstall. In other words, 

she took the lab packet to Heckstall at her earliest convenience. No error 

occurs when the State provides a defendant evidence as soon as the State is in 

possession of requested evidence. Warren v. State, 725 N.E.2d 828, 832-33 (Ind. 

2000). The lab packet contained no material new information, but rather was 

an extension of Pierce’s crime lab report, which had already been discovered. 

Although Heckstall argues that Pierce’s notes in the new packet “regarding the 

location of certain items of evidence could have played a significant role in 

questioning the credibility of T.C.,” appellant’s br. p. 8, Pierce’s crime lab

report that had already been provided included the locations where the knife 

and gun were recovered. Heckstall does not specify what or how information 

in the late-discovered packet could have helped his defense.

[12] Further, after Heckstall received the lab packet, he spent one and one-half hours 

re-deposing T.C. Before the presentation of evidence at trial, the trial court 

ordered a recess during which Heckstall had the opportunity to examine the lab 

packet. The trial court asked the State to make Pierce available for the defense 

to talk to before she testified, and the State said that Pierce would be present

that afternoon. The only new information in the packet was diagrams and

measurements, and the State said that it did not plan to use that information 

during trial. Heckstall had all the relevant information before trial, including 

Pierce’s crime lab report, and had been able to depose Pierce before trial. In 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1709-CR-2158 | March 15, 2018 Page 7 of 7

short, the State did not withhold any material evidence from Heckstall, and 

Heckstall has not shown that he was prejudiced by the late discovery of the lab 

packet. The trial court did not err by denying Heckstall’s motion for a 

continuance.

[13] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

Vaidik, C.J., and Altice, J., concur.