1. ADVISORY MEMO FOR THE MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, DIV. III
1
TO: MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT DIV. III
JUDGE THOMAS NEWMAN, JR.
FROM: IAN WEBB
DATE: 5/22/15
SUBJECT: STATE OF INDIANA VS. DANIEL JOSEPH KRIETE
CAUSE NO. 48C03-1411-F4-002003
48C03-1502-F4-000254
The Question: Concerning the defendant,Daniel Joseph Kriete,and his trial,it has been questioned whether the
defendant’s accused crimes should be consolidated into one single trial since the prosecution believes he has earned
said degree ofprosecution by the state; or, whether the defendantshould be allowed the rightof severance,in order
to procure a justand proper conviction that would not be given had only one jury tried Daniel J. Kriete.
Background: The defendantstands trial for numerous counts ofburglaryand theft that took place over the course of
several months,starting on August27, 2014 until his time of arrestoccurring on November 14 in 2014. Two Case
Number files have been presented to the court, serving as justification for the requests ofconsolidation and
severance both being asked of the court. The prosecution by the state,represented by Jeffrey Lockwood believes
that the series ofburglary and theft crimes should be consolidated into one trial based on the belief that the evidence
signifies that these offenses are of the same caliber,or,at the least,of similar character.This relatable nature would
then demonstrate a probable cause for joining the counts into one trial. However, the counsel for the defendant
believes the defendant is entitled the right to sever the counts and charges filed againsthim,since the defendant
would be prejudiced in his defense and denied the rightto a fair trial if all of said charges are tried together. This
motion derives from the public defense’s beliefthatthere is insufficientevidence connecting Daniel Kriete to every
single countwithin the series ofcharges.
Issues: The State of Indiana and Prosecutor Lockwood argued the numerous counts and charges againstthe
defendantportray a simple case ofconsolidation into one trial, as he states the evidence should reveal the defendant
committed a series ofconnected crimes ofthe same conduct carried outin mechanical fashion thatreflects an illegal
profession,according to A.I.C. 35-34-1-9(a).Based on Indiana Codes 35-43-2-1 and 35-43-4-2 thatoutline the
criminal charge ofburglary and theft respectively, along the with argumentcreated by the prosecution,the State of
Indiana believes the court should see fitto consolidate the similar counts and charges for trial againstDaniel J.
Kriete. However, the defendant’s counsel,Public Defender Thomas Broderick, believes the evidence doesn’tfully
supportthe entirety of the witness’s claims nor the evidence connecting him to the home that would tie the defendant
to each charge;therefore, arguing that there is not a strong enough connection to each count. Assuming this is true,
A.I.C. 35-34-1-9(8) states thatthe numerous counts ofburglaryand theft occurring over several months does not
constitute a single scheme or plan by Kriete; consequently,the offenses would onlybe joined together because of
their similarities in the act, and Kriete should be entitled to the right of severance.
Advised Holding: The defendant,Daniel J. Kriete, should notbe permitted to sever the counts and charges against
him pursuantto I.C. 35-34-1-11.The requestto consolidate the charges,argued byProsecutor Jeffrey Lockwood,
reflects the evidence more closely; however, the argumentto consolidate the counts atthe hearing by the Prosecutor

2. ADVISORY MEMO FOR THE MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, DIV. III
2
neglected to provide enough justification for the evident connection to the counts in Case No. 48C03-1411-F4-
002003 and Case No.48C03-1502-F4-000254 beyond the similarities ofthe acts in these crimes.Therefore,the
charges againstDavid J. Kriete should remain as follows:
1. The requestto sever each offense charged againstthe defendant,along with the requestto consolidate the
numerous offenses presentlybeing tried by the State of Indiana should both be denied.
2. There should remain two trials that reflect the separate Case Numbers to prevent the denial of substantial
rights deserved by the defendantprior to any conviction, which would allow justand proper reliefherein
granted by the Judge and Jury’s final resolution pertaining to these matters.
Rationale: The statute of I.C. 35-34-1-9(a) is exemplified in Daniel J.Kriete’s case,as the several counts filed
againsthim are relatable through their similar character and are based on the same conduct.The defendanthas also
demonstrated his capacityfor criminal conduct through the type of M.O. he exercised for the counts he and his
counsel have neglected to objectto in his hearing,justifying the validity of joining the counts into one trial. Although
the defense counsel is accurate in stating thatthe defendantwould have the right of severance if the counts from
numerous incidents were joined solelyfor the nature of each charge being the same,or similar,in character,I.C. 35 -
34-1-11(a);the criminal conductexhibited by Daniel J. Kriete supports the prosecutor’s argumentbased on the
statute 35-34-1-9(a)(2).Defense counsel for Daniel J. Kriete, Thomas Broderick, has stated in the hearing that for the
decision ofseverance or consolidation to be justand properly made,knowledge ofthe evidence mustbe carefully
applied.In each piece of clear evidence that can be setapart from the weak, the lack of objection to not all, but, some
counts,and the nature of the methods ofoperation,it can be said that Daniel J. Kriete exemplifies criminal conduct,
since the defendant’s motives for theft and burglary appear to be a means to make money. However, due to the
varying proximity of the separate charges in relation to the abandoned home the defendantsupposedlyresided in,as
well as the length of time between the various charges spanning across four months-time,the separate Cases should
not be allowed to consolidate.Subsequentlythe joinder ofcounts for trial could potentially and unjustlyhinder the
defendants’ substantial rights,including his rightto a fair trial if said charges are tried together. As a resultof the
evidence offered not being overly complex, Prosecutor Lockwood and Counsel Thomas Broderick are going to face
no difficulty presenting the facts to the jury and the judge for justand proper relief to either the state of Indiana,or to
defendantDaniel Joseph Kriete ifthis remains as two separate trials.