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
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