Arthur Scott v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
48A05-1605-CR-1152
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 6, 2016Background
- Arthur Scott pled guilty to criminal confinement (C felony), resisting law enforcement (D felony), battery (A misdemeanor), and reckless driving (B misdemeanor) on April 8, 2013; sentenced April 22, 2013 to three years work release + two years probation (aggregate 5 years).
- Scott’s work release converted to probation on February 12, 2015; one condition prohibited committing new crimes.
- February 7, 2016: Officer Brunett responded to a reported battery; victim Nikki Justice had bruising near her left eye and told Brunett Scott bit her; Scott was arrested for battery and State filed notice of probation violation.
- April 17, 2016: Officer Thompson attempted to arrest Scott on a warrant; Scott fled, was tased, resisted, and required three officers to secure him; State amended the probation-violation notice to include resisting law enforcement.
- Justice failed to appear at the probation-revocation hearing; over Scott’s hearsay objection the court admitted Officer Brunett’s testimony recounting Justice’s statements and observed injuries; the court found violations, revoked probation, and ordered Scott to serve his suspended sentence with the DOC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of hearsay at probation-revocation hearing | State: hearsay from unavailable witness is admissible if substantially trustworthy; Brunett’s testimony was trustworthy | Scott: Brunett’s recounting of Justice’s statements was inadmissible hearsay and violated confrontation/due process | Court: No abuse of discretion — hearsay admissible in revocation proceedings if substantially trustworthy; Brunett’s testimony was trustworthy and subject to cross-examination |
| Appropriateness of ordering DOC service for suspended sentence after revocation | State: revocation and execution of suspended sentence appropriate given multiple violations including resisting law enforcement | Scott: court should have considered alternatives to incarceration presented by Scott | Court: No abuse of discretion — probation is a privilege; record showed at least one (likely two) violations and significant resistance, so DOC commitment was justified |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. State, 955 N.E.2d 228 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings in revocation hearings)
- Smith v. State, 971 N.E.2d 86 (Ind. 2012) (Confrontation Clause/Crawford inapplicable to revocation hearings; hearsay admissible if substantially trustworthy)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause jurisprudence cited for distinction)
- Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. 2007) (probation is discretionary, not a right)