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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT