Brandon Lonnell Spinks v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A02-1606-CR-1269
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jun 23, 2017Background
- On Dec. 20, 2015, E.C. was found at her Indianapolis home with multiple injuries (lacerations from a cord, blunt-force head injury, bruises, hair pulled out); family forced entry after unsuccessful police welfare check and removed E.C. and her children.
- E.C. told emergency medical providers that the father of her children (Brandon Spinks) assaulted her over several hours and that she intended to press charges.
- The State charged Spinks with multiple offenses; a jury convicted him of Level 3 felony criminal confinement (other convictions were not entered due to double jeopardy).
- At trial the nurse and treating physician testified to E.C.’s statements identifying Spinks as the attacker under Evid. R. 803(4) (medical-treatment exception).
- The court admitted a redacted recorded three‑way jail call in which Spinks told his six‑year‑old son he was in jail because he had “messed up”; the child’s statements (“Don’t kill my Momma,” etc.) remained on the recording.
- Spinks appealed, arguing the medical-provider identification was not for treatment and the child’s statements were unfairly prejudicial under Evid. R. 403.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Spinks' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of victim’s ID to medical providers under Evid. R. 803(4) | ID statements are reasonably pertinent to medical treatment of domestic violence victims (safety/triage) | Identity was not necessary for diagnosis or treatment and thus hearsay | Admitted: identity of attacker in domestic violence cases is integral to medical treatment and falls under Rule 803(4) (affirmed) |
| Admissibility of child’s statements on redacted jail call under Evid. R. 403 | Child’s prompts provided context making Spinks’s admission (“I messed up”) more probative of charged offenses; low prejudicial effect | Child’s statements were more prejudicial than probative and should have been redacted | Admitted: trial court did not abuse discretion; probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- VanPatten v. State, 986 N.E.2d 255 (Ind. 2013) (two‑step reliability test for medical‑treatment hearsay exception)
- Ward v. State, 50 N.E.3d 752 (Ind. 2016) (identifying perpetrator is integral to medical standard of care for domestic‑violence victims)
- McClain v. State, 675 N.E.2d 329 (Ind. 1996) (statement admissibility requires showing declarant’s motivation to be truthful for treatment and that content would be relied on by clinicians)
- Perry v. State, 956 N.E.2d 41 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (exceptions to barring identity statements in child‑abuse/sexual‑assault/domestic‑violence contexts)
- Bryant v. State, 984 N.E.2d 240 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (trial court’s discretionary role in balancing probative value versus unfair prejudice under Evid. R. 403)