Opinion ID: 852256
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Statements in Connection with a Plea Agreement

Text: Gonzalez argues that his letter was inadmissible because he authored it and addressed it to EVSC in the course of the plea negotiation in an effort to convince EVSC not to object to the plea agreement. The State counters that the letter was not a part of the plea negotiation because it was written after the agreement between Gonzalez and the State had been signed. The State also argues that the letter was admissible because it was addressed to EVSC, the victim, and not to an entity with authority to enter into a binding plea agreement. The common law, an Indiana statute, and Evidence Rule 410 all recognize that statements incident to plea bargaining may be inadmissible at trial. Gilliam v. State, 650 N.E.2d 45, 49 (Ind.Ct.App.1995). This rule is designed to encourage open discussion in the plea bargaining process. Stephens v. State, 588 N.E.2d 564, 565-66 (Ind.Ct.App.1992), trans. denied. This exclusion is rooted in the same policy considerations that underlie excluding offers of civil compromise in civil cases. 2 McCormick on Evidence § 266, at 237 (Kenneth S. Broun et al. eds., 6th ed. 2006); see Bules v. Marshall County, 920 N.E.2d 247, 252 (Ind.2010) ([This rule] is designed to facilitate settlement by promoting candor in settlement discussions....). We last addressed the scope of the privilege for plea negotiations in Martin v. State, 537 N.E.2d 491 (Ind.1989). Martin held that a suspect's inquiry of a probation officer regarding the prospects of a plea agreement was not within the privilege. Martin was decided under Indiana Code § 35-35-3-4, which provides: A plea agreement, or a verbal or written communication concerning the plea agreement, may not be admitted into evidence at the trial of the case, should the plea agreement not culminate in approval by the court. Martin dealt with statements by the defendant before any plea negotiations had begun and held the statements were therefore not within the privilege. We reasoned that the plea bargaining process does not start until the parties have agreed to negotiate. Martin, 537 N.E.2d at 493 (citing Chase v. State, 528 N.E.2d 784, 786 (Ind.1988)). We also held that in order to qualify as a privileged communication, a statement must meet two requirements: first, the defendant must have been charged with a crime at the time of the statement, and, second, the statement must have been made to someone with authority to enter into a binding plea bargain. Id. The State contends that this second requirement rendered the privilege unavailable for Gonzalez's letter to EVSC. As explained below, we do not agree. In 1994, Indiana adopted the current Evidence Rules, including Evidence Rule 410, which reads: Evidence of a plea of guilty or admission of the charge which was later withdrawn, or a plea of nolo contendere, or of an offer so to plead to the crime charged or any other crime, or of statements made in connection with any of the foregoing withdrawn pleas or offers, is not admissible in any civil or criminal action, case or proceeding against the person who made the plea or offer. The rule arguably broadens somewhat the range of privileged communication, expanding from the statutory privilege for statements concerning a plea agreement to those in connection with an agreement. As Martin held, the privilege attaches only after a plea negotiation has begun. In this case that is no issue because a plea agreement had been reached and was under consideration by the court. Only the prosecutor has the authority to enter into a plea agreement, and certainly a defendant's statements in the course of negotiation with the prosecutor are within the privilege afforded by the plea negotiation. The purposes of the rule require also excluding statements to some persons in addition to those with authority to enter into a binding agreement. Under Indiana law, after a defendant and the State enter into a plea agreement, the trial court is required to order a presentence report. I.C. § 35-35-3-3(a). The probation officer preparing this report is to gather information regarding the circumstances attending the commission of the offense. I.C. §§ 35-38-1-8(a), -9(b)(1). The plea agreement must also be shown to the victim, who has a right to comment on the crime and the proposed sentence. I.C. § 35-35-3-5. The agreement is not final until it is approved by the trial court. I.C. § 35-35-3-3. In the course of this process, the defendant may make statements to the victim, the trial judge, or other court officers. These statements are within the language of both the statute (concerning a plea agreement) and Evidence Rule 410 (in connection with a plea agreement). Moreover, the purposes of the ruleto encourage candor and facilitate a plea agreementare best furthered by excluding any concessions from evidence if the plea is not finalized. Accordingly, we hold that for a statement to be a privileged communication, the defendant must have been charged with a crime at the time of the statement and the prosecutor and the defendant must have initiated discussions related to a plea agreement. Second, the statement must have been made with the intent of seeking a plea agreement or in contemplation of a proposed agreement. Third, the statement is privileged if made to someone who has the authority to enter into or approve a binding plea agreement or who has a right to object to or reject the agreement. Here, Gonzalez and the State had agreed to a proposed plea agreement. Before the agreement could be finalized, it required approval of the trial court. EVSC, as a victim of the accident, had a right to express its opinion to the court as to approval of the agreement. Gonzalez then wrote the letter in question to EVSC in an attempt to persuade it to accept the agreement. Gonzalez's letter had as its ultimate purpose the reduction of punishment or other favorable treatment from the State to the defendant. Gilliam, 650 N.E.2d at 49 (quoting Crandell v. State, 490 N.E.2d 377, 380 (Ind.Ct.App.1986) trans. denied ). Gonzalez's letter was therefore a communication made in connection with his guilty plea. Accordingly, the trial court erred in admitting the letter at trial.