ILNews

Inadmissible evidence leads to new trial

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals today reversed and remanded for a new trial a case in which a defendant was convicted of fraud on a financial institution and identity deception based on documents that should not have been admitted as evidence.

In William J. Speybroeck v. State of Indiana, 20A05-0701-CR-40, Speybroeck appealed his conviction, arguing the state did not properly authenticate business documents pursuant to Indiana Evidence Rule 902(9) and that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting documents into evidence under Indiana Evidence Rule 803(6), the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Speybroeck also appealed whether a retrial is appropriate.

Speybroeck purchased a Kawasaki motorcycle from Maple City Cycle by opening a credit card through the business using the Social Security number and date of birth of his father, Robert, without Robert's permission. William also purchased parts for the motorcycle with the Kawasaki credit card; he never made any payments on the card.

Robert learned that William used his personal information to open an account in his name through HSBC bank and authorized police to investigate William. In October 2004, the state charged William with fraud on a financial institution and identity deception.

Before the jury trial began, William objected to the admissibility of the state's Exhibit 11, which included a notarized affidavit signed Oct. 23, 2006, by a bank employee and numerous documents from Kawasaki. William argued the affidavit wasn't authentic because it didn't indicate how many pages were attached nor did it identify what documents it was authenticating. Computer printouts included in Exhibit 11 were dated a day after the affidavit.

Williams also argued the Kawasaki documents, which included invoices and credit slips used by William, could not be admitted because the affidavit couldn't authenticate how Maple City and Kawasaki conducted its businesses nor could they be admitted because HSBC didn't create them in the ordinary course of its business.

The trial court overruled William's objection and admitted Exhibit 11 into evidence. William was found guilty and sentenced to an aggregate term of 16 years with six years suspended.

The court agreed the affidavit from HSBC bank does not authenticate the attached documents because it never specified which documents it purports to authenticate and it lacks a specific number of pages of documents. The affidavit lacks trustworthiness and does not comply with Rule 902(9) and all non-authenticated documents must be excluded from Exhibit 11, wrote Judge Edward Najam.

HSBC's submission of Kawasaki letters and documents are also not covered by the affidavit because the person recording the documents must do so in the regular course of business and have personal knowledge of the information. None of the Kawasaki documents satisfy Rule 803(6)'s requirements of reliability. Someone at HSBC was required to have personal knowledge of the information contained in the Kawasaki documents.

Because Exhibit 11 should not have been admitted into trial, William's convictions must be reversed, wrote Judge Najam. The state repeatedly used Exhibit 11, so it had to have impacted the judgment. The court remanded for a new trial and cited Ground v. State (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) and Stahl v. State (Ind. 1997).
ADVERTISEMENT

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