ILNews

Rehearing sidesteps state’s claims in battery case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

On a petition for rehearing, the state claimed a recent decision by the Indiana Court of Appeals held that “a social worker would always be a declarant in child abuse cases, even when the social worker is merely a scribe.” But the judges disagreed and decided that this particular case is not the proper one to make such a blanket determination.

In Verdyer Clark v. State of Indiana, 49A04-1202-CR-66, in addition to a social worker always being a declarant, the state argued that the Court of Appeals’ previous decision held “the age of the perpetrator is never pertinent to the medical diagnosis or treatment.”

The COA reversed Verdyer Clark’s Class D felony conviction of battery last year because the state was unable to prove that Clark was over 18 years old when he battered a child younger than 14. The state presented two documents from a social worker which both listed Clark as 23 years old.

The state claimed that the hearsay statements by the social worker were admissible because they were related to medical diagnosis or treatment. The Court of Appeals, however, found them inadmissible because the social worker was the declarant, not the person seeking diagnosis or treatment, and Clark’s age wasn’t pertinent to the diagnosis or treatment of the infant victim.

“Here, the record and argument did not permit us to decide whether a social worker would ‘always’ be a declarant in child abuse cases, and we did not so hold. We leave for another day the determination whether or when a social worker is a declarant in a child abuse case,” Judge Melissa May wrote.

“In our original decision we said only that the information in the record before us about Clark’s age had no ‘apparent relevance to a diagnosis of the child’s injuries.’ The relevance was not apparent because on appeal, the State offered no ‘explanation why information about Clark’s age might be relevant to a diagnosis of the child’s injuries,’” she continued.  “Again, a determination whether the age of a perpetrator is relevant to a child victim’s medical diagnosis or treatment is best left to another case.”
 

 

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. 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.

  2. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

  3. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  4. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  5. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

ADVERTISEMENT