ILNews

Appeals court sides with murder defendant in hearsay appeal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Citing hearsay rules, the Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed a trial court’s finding that the state may not introduce into evidence statements that could implicate a man who is facing murder charges.

In  State of Indiana v. Alfonso M. Chavez, No. 45A03-1012-CR-619, the state argued that statements by two co-defendants that implicate Alfonso Chavez should be admitted because neither the Sixth Amendment nor the Indiana Rules of Evidence require exclusion of the evidence. The appeals court disagreed with the state regarding the Rules of Evidence and therefore declined to consider the constitutional relevance of the appeal.

Chavez is charged with two counts of murder in the deaths of Jason Janek and Kevin Abulhusn, who were fatally shot in 2004. The killings were unsolved until 2010, when two men – David Redmon and Hugh Struss – made statements implicating Chavez and others involved.

According to Redmon, a former co-worker of Alfonso’s brother Mark Chavez, Mark said that Alfonso had shot at least one of the men, and he said he helped Alfonso dispose of the bodies. The state argues that the trial court erred by excluding the statement Mark made to Redmon, and that Mark’s statements should be admissible because he is a party-opponent. The appeals court held that because the state has not alleged that Mark is a co-conspirator, his statements are not of a party-opponent and are therefore inadmissible as hearsay.  

Hugh Struss said that Eric Valdivia told him that Alfonso shot and killed Janek and Abulhusn in the basement of the bar Valdivia owned. The state argued that Valdivia’s statements are admissible because they were an “excited utterance.” But the appeals court held that no indication existed about how much time had passed between the deaths and Valdivia’s statements. Citing Boatner v. State, 934 N.E.2d 184, 186 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), 934 N.E.2d at 186, the appeals court held that the admission of an excited utterance turns on whether the statement was inherently reliable because the witness was under the stress of a startling event and therefore unlikely to make deliberate falsifications.

The appeals court affirmed the trial court, holding that the state had not shown that trial court abused its discretion by excluding Mark Chavez’s and Valdivia’s statements.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Excitable utterance? ha ha ha
    very very unprofessional for the state of Indiana to think an excited utterance would be valid what they should have gone with is a personal sense impression idiots. Hearsay within Hearsay is inadmissible in Indiana, always has been how many would get arrested if groups of ppl who shared a common hatred for another would make up fallacies?

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT