ILNews

COA: woman not denied right to confrontation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a woman’s appeal of her prostitution conviction, the Indiana Court of Appeals addressed the right to confront witnesses and its interrelationship with hearsay evidence.

In Starlett Gilbert v. State of Indiana, No. 49A04-1102-CR-77, Starlett Gilbert appealed her conviction of Class D felony prostitution. Two police officers – Shane Decker and Larry Wilkerson – were working undercover when Gilbert approached them in their car. She got in after the two said they were looking to party and she suggested they could drive to her place. When they got to Gilbert’s home, the officers arrested her for prostitution.

At trial, Decker testified that Gilbert had asked the two what they wanted to do and that Wilkerson responded that he wanted oral sex. Gilbert objected, arguing that was hearsay, but the testimony was allowed. Decker was briefly cross-examined by the defense and Wilkerson was never called to testify.

Gilbert claimed that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting Decker’s testimony regarding Wilkerson’s statements and her right to confrontation was violated. The state conceded that Decker’s testimony in question was hearsay and shouldn’t have been admitted, but argued that Gilbert never called Wilkerson as a witness. The appellate court found Decker’s testimony wasn’t hearsay, but was a statement introduced to show that Wilkerson wanted to receive oral sex and provide context for Gilbert’s response, which was to ask how much money they had, wrote Judge John Baker.

The Confrontation Clause doesn’t apply to non-hearsay statements, even if they are testimonial, and in this case, Gilbert was given the opportunity to cross-examine Decker, who was present the entire time Gilbert was with the undercover officers.

But, the judges emphasized their ruling should not be interpreted as approval for how the state presented its case.

“To be sure, the State had the opportunity to procure the testimony of Detective Wilkerson but declined to do so. While we affirm the trial court, we strongly caution the State against such haphazard work in the future,” wrote the judge.

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