ILNews

Officer’s inclusion of victim’s statements did not violate Confrontation Clause

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that a police officer’s testimony that incorporated statements from the victim did not violate the defendant’s right to be confronted with the witnesses against him.

Joshua King appealed his felony conviction, in part, on the grounds that the trial court violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause when it admitted testimony of Officer Philip Rossman.

King was found guilty of Class C felony battery, Class A misdemeanor battery as a lesser included offense of the second count of Class C felony battery, and Class D felony strangulation.

In Joshua King v. State of Indiana, 49A02-1204-CR-351, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and remanded to the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment for erroneously listing King’s second battery conviction as a Class C felony. The COA found the trial court did not violate King’s rights under the Confrontation Clause. Also, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted recordings of calls King made to the victim from jail. 

On Jan. 30, 2012, Rossman responded to a domestic violence call at an apartment complex. At the leasing office, he met the victim who was still visibly shaken and described the incident. He then went to the apartment to speak to King and retrieve the victim’s 11-month-old son.

At trial, the victim did not take the witness stand, but Rossman testified as to what the victim had told him. King appealed, arguing the police officer’s testimony violated the Confrontation Clause because what the victim said to Rossman was testimonial.

Citing Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 822 (2006), the COA noted when the purpose of the interrogation is to enable police to meet an ongoing emergency, the statements are considered non-testimonial and not subject to the Confrontation Clause.

The COA found the victim’s statements to be non-testimonial and admissible because of her demeanor, the proximity in time to the infliction of her injuries, and the immediate possibly of danger to her child.

The court dismissed King’s arguments that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted statements from the apartment’s assistant manager and the nurse who treated the victim. The court held that any possible error in the admission of that evidence was harmless because the testimony of the two individuals was cumulative of Rossman’s testimony.
 
 

 

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. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  2. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  3. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  4. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

  5. No, Ron Drake is not running against incumbent Larry Bucshon. That’s totally wrong; and destructively misleading to say anything like that. All political candidates, including me in the 8th district, are facing voters, not incumbents. You should not firewall away any of voters’ options. We need them all now more than ever. Right? Y’all have for decades given the Ds and Rs free 24/7/365 coverage of taxpayer-supported promotion at the expense of all alternatives. That’s plenty of head-start, money-in-the-pocket advantage for parties and people that don’t need any more free immunities, powers, privileges and money denied all others. Now it’s time to play fair and let voters know that there are, in fact, options. Much, much better, and not-corrupt options. Liberty or Bust! Andy Horning Libertarian for IN08 USA House of Representatives Freedom, Indiana

ADVERTISEMENT