ILNews

Booking card exception to hearsay rule

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A booking card created by law enforcement in the course of a ministerial, nonevaluative booking process is not subject to the police reports exclusion under Indiana Evidence Rule 803(8), the Indiana Court of Appeals decided today.

In Stacey Fowler v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0910-CR-1037, Stacey Fowler argued that her battery victim’s booking card from a prior, unrelated arrest wasn’t admissible under the public records exception to the hearsay rule, and the introduction violated her constitutional confrontation rights. Fowler was arrested and convicted of Class B misdemeanor battery against her husband, Ricky Fowler.

Police came to the Fowlers’ home after Ricky called the police. Ricky identified himself once police arrived and said Stacey had taken his wallet. While there, Stacey pushed Ricky with both hands and he was knocked off balance. Stacey was arrested for battery, and an officer got Ricky’s wallet from Stacey’s truck and found Ricky’s photo ID. At trial, the state introduced certified “Booking information” from the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department with a mugshot of Ricky with his name, date of birth, and physical description to help identify the victim because he didn’t attend the trial. One of the arresting officers testified that the person in the photo was Ricky.

The Court of Appeals judges had to look to other jurisdictions to aid in their decision that the booking would fall under the public records exception. The public records exception excludes investigative police reports when offered against the accused in criminal trials, but it does not bar admission of police records pertaining to “routine, ministerial, objective nonevaluative matters made in non-adversarial settings.”

Other courts have held the public records exception permits admission of police records created in connection with routine booking procedures, wrote Judge Nancy Vaidik. The booking constituted hearsay evidence because it was offered to prove that the man in the mugshot was Ricky.

“The booking card was created by law enforcement, but the biographical information on the printout was obtained and recorded in the course of a ministerial, nonevaluative booking process,” she wrote. “In line with the foregoing, we find that the exhibit fell within the ambit of Evidence Rule 803(8) and was not subject to the police reports exclusion.”

The judges also held that the booking information printout wasn’t testimonial evidence under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). It recited biographical and physical identification information obtained only for custodial purposes and wasn’t created to prove some fact at trial.

The Court of Appeals found the identification furnished by the booking card was cumulative but the alleged error was harmless. They also found any alleged error in the exclusion of Stacey’s testimony on out-of-court statements made by the arresting officers at the Fowlers’ home to be waived.  
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT