Opinion ID: 853073
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Restraints and Shackles

Text: In Evans v. State, 571 N.E.2d 1231, 1238 (Ind.1991), this Court concluded that a defendant has the right to appear in front of a jury without physical restraints, unless restraints are necessary to prevent the defendant's escape, to protect those present in the courtroom, or to maintain order during the trial. We have held that the facts and reasoning supporting the trial judge's determination that restraints are necessary must be placed on the record. Wrinkles v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1179, 1193 (Ind.2001) (quoting Coates v. State, 487 N.E.2d 167, 169 (Ind.Ct.App.1985)). An order to restrain the defendant is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Forte v. State, 759 N.E.2d 206, 208 (Ind. 2001). In a sidebar with attorneys for both the State and defense present, the trial court explained its action as follows: At the conclusion of the previous trial in this case, it is my understanding that there was a significant physical altercation between Mr. French and one or more law enforcement officers. [2] I have instructed the law enforcement officers to secure French's ... I think it's his right hand. I think he's left handed ... so that he is able to write. But he also has ankle irons or leg irons, whatever they call them. [Defense counsel], you have an objection to that? His counsel objected only to the arm constraint because it could be seen by the jury. The trial court overruled the objection based upon the altercation that happened as the jury was leaving the courtroom during the last proceeding. The trial court complied with the requirements of law by stating, on the record, facts and reasoning supporting its determination that restraints were necessary. Based on the reasons given by the trial court, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in having the defendant handcuffed and shackled.