Brett Conover v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 73A01-1506-CR-513

Background

Capital One filed a small-claims suit against Brett Conover for an unpaid credit-card balance on an account ending in 8928; Conover, pro se, denied ever having an account with Capital One at the small-claims trial.
The small-claims judge extensively questioned Conover, elicited testimony under oath, and indicated he would refer the matter to prosecutors; the judge found for Conover but referred the matter for criminal investigation.
Investigators obtained a Drake’s receipt for a $27.77 MasterCard transaction on Jan. 3, 2009, signed “Brett Conover,” and a forensic examiner matched that signature to Conover’s known signatures.
Detective Crafton testified at the criminal bench trial summarizing Capital One billing records (never admitted into evidence at the criminal trial) that linked the Drake’s transaction to an account ending in 8928 in Conover’s name.
Conover was charged with perjury based on statements at the small-claims hearing denying a Capital One account; the trial court admitted the Drake’s receipt and Crafton’s hearsay testimony and convicted Conover.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding Detective Crafton’s summary of out-of-court credit-card statements was inadmissible hearsay that constituted fundamental error and rendered the evidence insufficient to sustain a perjury conviction; the court remanded for a new trial, finding double jeopardy did not bar retrial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of Detective Crafton’s testimony summarizing Capital One billing records	State relied on Crafton’s testimony to tie Conover to the Capital One account ending in 8928	Conover argued the testimony was inadmissible hearsay because the underlying billing records were not admitted	Court held the testimony was hearsay, its admission was fundamental error because it was the only evidence linking Conover to Capital One
Sufficiency of evidence for perjury conviction	State argued evidence (receipt, signature match, Crafton’s summary) supported that Conover knowingly made false material statements under oath	Conover argued without admissible billing records the State failed to prove he made false statements about having a Capital One account	Court held evidence was insufficient because of the fundamental hearsay error; but considering all trial evidence (including the improper testimony) the State could prove guilt, so retrial is permitted
Waiver vs. fundamental-error review	State contended failure to object waived the issue	Conover claimed fundamental-error exception applies despite no contemporaneous objection	Court applied narrow fundamental-error standard and found the error met that high threshold
Judicial conduct at small-claims hearing	State: referral and judge’s questioning appropriate context	Conover: judge crossed line into advocacy and threatened perjury prosecution	Court criticized judge’s conduct as inappropriate though it did not find it constituted fundamental error in the criminal trial

Key Cases Cited

Turner v. State, 953 N.E.2d 1039 (Ind. 2011) (trial-court evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Delarosa v. State, 938 N.E.2d 690 (Ind. 2010) (failure to contemporaneously object waives issue absent fundamental error)
Mathews v. State, 849 N.E.2d 578 (Ind. 2006) (defines narrow fundamental-error exception)
Brown v. State, 799 N.E.2d 1064 (Ind. 2003) (fundamental-error exception available only in egregious circumstances)
Tessely v. State, 432 N.E.2d 1374 (Ind. 1982) (summarizing out-of-court statements is hearsay in classic form)
Thornton v. State, 25 N.E.3d 800 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (discusses risk of admitting summarized out-of-court statements)
Willis v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1065 (Ind. 2015) (standard for sufficiency review)
Walker v. State, 998 N.E.2d 724 (Ind. 2013) (substantial evidence standard for convictions)
Speybroeck v. State, 875 N.E.2d 813 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (improperly admitted evidence is harmless only when substantial independent evidence supports conviction)
Meyers v. State, 364 N.E.2d 760 (Ind. 1977) (court’s role vs. prosecutor; caution against judicial advocacy)
Jaramillo v. State, 823 N.E.2d 1187 (Ind. 2005) (clarifies precedential limits cited in appellant briefing)