ILNews

COA: Court erred in admitting probable cause affidavit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A trial court should not have admitted a probable cause affidavit that contained multiple layers of hearsay at a probation revocation hearing, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded Wednesday.

David Robinson appealed the revocation of his probation. He was on probation for a battery conviction when he was arrested and charged following a domestic dispute with his girlfriend. The girlfriend told her story to Lawrence Police officer Brian Sharp, who then relayed it to Lawrence Police detective Thomas Zentz, who wrote up the probable cause affidavit.

The state filed notices of probation violations, one of which included the incident between Robinson and his girlfriend. At a bifurcated probation revocation hearing, the trial court allowed the probable cause affidavit by Zentz to be admitted over Robinson’s objections. Zentz, Sharp and Robinson’s girlfriend were never called to testify. The trial court found Robinson violated his probation because of the arrest, as well as not complying with counseling and drug testing requirements.

The appellate judges agreed with Robinson that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the probable cause affidavit because it contained multiple layers of hearsay and was unreliable evidence. Even though the appeal is moot as Robinson has since served his home detention for the violation, the COA took the appeal because it is an issue that is likely to occur. The judges also noted none of their prior cases directly address the particular facts and circumstances found in this case.

In this case, Zentz stated facts as told by Latonia Green, Robinson’s girlfriend, to Sharp, who relayed them to Zentz. Zentz never observed injuries on Green or any other fact or circumstance of the alleged attack, wrote Judge Carr Darden. The trial court also never explained why Zentz’s affidavit, which is full of hearsay within hearsay within hearsay, was reliable. The trial court also incorrectly compared an arrest to a revocation of probation when deciding to allow the affidavit.

“The former involves temporary incarceration before a hearing where the defendant is afforded the full panoply of due process rights. The latter, however, involves potential long term incarceration based on hearsay. That hearsay should be substantially reliable,” wrote the judge in David Robinson v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-1101-CR-13.

Based on the facts and circumstances in this case, the probable cause affidavit wasn’t substantially reliable. However, the state presented and the trial court found there were additional factors supporting the revocation of Robinson’s probation, so the COA affirmed.
 

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. IF the Right to Vote is indeed a Right, then it is a RIGHT. That is the same for ALL eligible and properly registered voters. And this is, being able to cast one's vote - until the minute before the polls close in one's assigned precinct. NOT days before by absentee ballot, and NOT 9 miles from one's house (where it might be a burden to get to in time). I personally wait until the last minute to get in line. Because you never know what happens. THAT is my right, and that is Mr. Valenti's. If it is truly so horrible to let him on school grounds (exactly how many children are harmed by those required to register, on school grounds, on election day - seriously!), then move the polling place to a different location. For ALL voters in that precinct. Problem solved.

  2. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  3. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  4. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  5. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

ADVERTISEMENT