Charles Foster v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A02-1703-CR-618
| Ind. Ct. App. | Aug 22, 2017Background
- Victim S.W. arrived at a residence around 6:15 a.m. on April 2, 2013, screamed she had been raped, and appeared to be in shock; a resident called 9-1-1.
- Police investigation, including DNA analysis, led to defendant Charles Foster, who was tried on multiple counts (rape, criminal confinement, pointing a firearm).
- At trial S.W. and Foster gave conflicting testimony about an encounter in Foster’s car.
- A recorded 9-1-1 call in which a caller relayed S.W.’s statements and described her condition was admitted over Foster’s objection.
- The jury convicted Foster of one count of Criminal Confinement (Class C felony) and acquitted on remaining counts; Foster appealed the admission of the 9-1-1 recording.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility: Was the 9-1-1 recording hearsay and inadmissible? | State: Recording admissible as hearsay exceptions apply to the statements. | Foster: Recording contains inadmissible hearsay (two levels) and caller lacks personal knowledge of underlying event. | Court: Both levels fall under hearsay exceptions (excited utterance for S.W.; present-sense impression for the caller); admissible. |
| Confrontation Clause: Did admission violate Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses? | State: Call was nontestimonial because primary purpose was to address an ongoing emergency and S.W.’s condition. | Foster: Call was to report a past crime and thus testimonial, requiring the caller to testify. | Court: Call was nontestimonial under Davis because it focused on S.W.’s emergent medical/state needs; no confrontation violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shinnock v. State, 76 N.E.3d 841 (Ind. 2017) (trial court has wide discretion on evidence admissibility)
- Turner v. State, 953 N.E.2d 1039 (Ind. 2011) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause bars testimonial statements of non-testifying witnesses unless unavailable and previously cross-examined)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (distinguishes testimonial vs. nontestimonial statements in 911/police contexts; primary-purpose test)
- Ward v. State, 50 N.E.3d 752 (Ind. 2016) (application of Crawford and Davis in Indiana context)
- Teague v. State, 978 N.E.2d 1183 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (hearsay exceptions rest on indicia of reliability)