ILNews

Officer’s testimony about victim’s statement admissible, COA rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A trial court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed an Indianapolis police officer to testify as to a victim’s out-of-court statements made to the officer shortly after an incident where she was beaten up.

Several passers-by saw Gabriel McQuay and R.S. yelling next to their car which was parked by a curb. McQuay pushed and punched R.S., according to the court record, and she screamed he was trying to kill her. McQuay ran off before Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Officer Travis Williams arrived. He noted that R.S. was visibly upset. She identified herself and told Williams that McQuay attacked her.

McQuay was found guilty of Class D felony criminal confinement and Class A misdemeanor battery.

In Gabriel McQuay v. State of Indiana, 49A02-1311-CR-954, McQuay argued the trial court should not have admitted into evidence Williams’ testimony regarding R.S.’s out-of-court identification of herself and McQuay to the officer.
 
The state’s evidence demonstrates that R.S.’s statements identifying herself and McQuay to Officer Williams at the scene were excited utterances and, therefore, admissible statements, Judge Edward Najam wrote.  And R.S.’s identification of herself and McQuay relates to McQuay’s attack on her. The Court of Appeals could not say that the trial court abused its discretion when it concluded that R.S.’s statements to Officer Williams were excited utterances and therefore admissible pursuant to Indiana Evidence Rule 803(2).

Williams’ testimony also did not deny McQuay his Sixth Amendment right to confront R.S.

“Under an objective analysis, the circumstances of the encounter as well as the statements and actions of R.S. and Officer Williams indicate that the primary purpose of the interrogation was to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. As such, R.S.’s identification of herself and McQuay were not testimonial statements. The Confrontation Clause did not bar their admission at McQuay’s trial,” Najam wrote.
 

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