ILNews

High court addresses Protected Person Statute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Addressing for the first time under the current Rules of Evidence a case regarding a protected person testifying at trial as well as by videotape or other statement, the Indiana Supreme Court held that if the statements are consistent and both are otherwise admissible, testimony of a protected person can't be presented both in open court and in a pre-recorded statement through the Protected Person Statute.

In Brian Tyler v. State of Indiana, No. 69S04-0801-CR-3, the Supreme Court exercised its supervisory power to hold that a party can't introduce testimony via the Protected Person Statute if the same person testifies in open court as to the same matters.

Brian Tyler was convicted of two counts of Class A felony child molesting, two counts of Class C felony child molesting, and one count of Class D felony vicarious sexual gratification. All five child victims testified at trial and videotaped interviews of three of the children were admitted into evidence. Tyler appealed, arguing error under Indiana Rule of Evidence 403 or fundamental error in the admission of the children's taped interviews.

The majority believed admitting consistent statements through both pre-recorded media and by live testimony presents two problems aside from confrontation clause or hearsay issues. Admitting the live testimony and consistent videotape statements is cumulative evidence and can be unfairly prejudicial, wrote Justice Theodore Boehm, and if a child or protected person is mature and reliable enough to testify in live court, then using the Protected Person Statute is unnecessary.

Justice Boehm wrote the rules implemented by use of supervisory powers aren't applicable to proceedings conducted prior to publication. The majority agreed that the court didn't commit reversible error by admitting the videotaped statements. Justice Sullivan concurred in result with this holding in a separate opinion and respectfully suggested the status quo is superior to what was adopted by the Supreme Court today.

Under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), the majority revised Tyler's sentence, finding his 110-year prison sentence to be inappropriate. Instead of attaching the habitual offender enhancement to Tyler's Class A felony child molesting convictions, the majority attached it to his Class D felony vicarious sexual gratification conviction, resulting in a maximum enhancement of 4 ½ years instead of 30 years. The majority also concluded the enhancement of the consecutive sentences imposed for the Class A child molesting convictions above the advisory level wasn't warranted and remanded for the trial court to issue an amended sentencing order in accordance with the opinion without a hearing, leaving Tyler with a 67 ½ year sentence.

Justice Dickson dissented as to revising Tyler's sentence, writing the trial judge's evaluation and determination of the appropriate sentence doesn't warrant appellate intrusion.

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT