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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT