ILNews

Victim's statements to nurse allowed, but judges reverse convictions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals concluded that a victim’s statements detailing her physical attack and identifying her attacker were admissible in court and were nontestimonial, so the defendant’s confrontation rights weren’t violated. However, the judges reversed the man’s convictions because the trial court shouldn’t have admitted prior misconduct evidence involving the defendant and the victim.

Dennis Perry challenged his convictions of strangulation, criminal mischief, and possession of cocaine stemming from an alleged attack on his ex-girlfriend, N.D. She told police and a forensic nurse that Perry had forced her to have sex in her rental car and when she tried to get away, he hit her car with a tire iron. The drug conviction came from police finding cocaine in the back of his truck after stopping him because the car matched the description of the suspect’s truck.

Before trial, N.D. died from a seizure disorder, but the forensic nurse and investigating officers did testify at trial. The nurse’s report was admitted into evidence over the defense’s hearsay objection. On cross-examination, the state elicited that Perry had been arrested and charged on five previous occasions with domestic disturbances involving N.D.

In Dennis Perry v. State of Indiana, No. 49A05-1012-CR-774, the appellate court held that the medical record completed by the forensic nurse and N.D.’s statements within that record did not constitute inadmissible hearsay. Indiana Evidence Rule 803(4) allows for the “medical diagnosis exception” to the hearsay rule, under which N.D.’s out-of-court statements fall. The records prepared by the forensic nurse fall under the “records of regularly conducted business activity” exception under Rule 803(6).

The judges then had to determine whether N.D.’s statements to the nurse were “testimonial” for the purpose of the Sixth Amendment – that is, what was the primary purpose of the nurse’s examination and N.D.’s statements? Citing State v. Stahl, 855 N.E.2d 834 (Ohio 2006), and other jurisdictions that reached similar conclusions as Stahl, the COA concluded that N.D.’s statements describing her physical attack and identifying Perry as her assailant were nontestimonial.

“At any rate, evaluating the encounter objectively and in light of all relevant factors, we still cannot say that the ‘primary purpose’ of the exam from either the patient’s or caretaker’s perspective was to prove past facts with an eye toward trial. To echo the Ohio Supreme Court, that function was at best secondary to the principal objective of providing and receiving medical attention,” wrote Judge Nancy Vaidik.

The judges also held that the medical record prepared by the nurse did not run afoul of Perry’s Sixth Amendment rights.

But they concluded that the trial court erred when it allowed for evidence of previous arrests and charges regarding domestic violence between Perry and N.D. to be admitted into evidence. The state claimed that Perry opened the door for the evidence in his testimony, but the appellate court disagreed. The state’s evidence only consisted of the arrests and charges, as Perry was never convicted on those charges, and no additional proof that he committed the prior acts at issue.

This error was not harmless, so Perry’s convictions should be reversed, but he may be retried, because the judges found retrial wouldn’t violate double jeopardy.

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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT