Christina Schermerhorn v. State of Indiana, 61 N.E.3d 375

Background

On Nov. 10, 2013, Christina Schermerhorn allegedly assaulted her husband Stanley after an argument about alcohol; he sustained a one- to two-inch cut to his left arm and was treated at a hospital.
Police found blood on a kitchen knife and observed Schermerhorn appearing intoxicated at the home; she was arrested and charged with multiple counts including criminal recklessness and domestic battery.
Schermerhorn asserted an "effects of battery" defense (a statutory variant of self-defense tied to prior repeated abuse) and sought to introduce broad evidence of Stanley’s prior misconduct.
The trial court allowed evidence of prior abuse by Stanley against Schermerhorn but excluded certain proffered evidence, including an August 2011 audio recording allegedly capturing Stanley choking his teenage son.
The jury convicted Schermerhorn of Class A misdemeanor criminal recklessness and Class A misdemeanor domestic battery; she appealed, arguing evidentiary exclusion and instructional errors.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Admissibility of 2011 audio recording	Schermerhorn: the recording is relevant to show effects of battery and supports her defense	State: recording is inadmissible under Indiana Evidence Rules; constitutionality not implicated	Court: recording irrelevant under Rules 401/402 because effects-of-battery statute is limited to repeated physical/sexual abuse of the defendant by the victim; exclusion did not violate constitutional right to present a defense and was harmless
2. Exclusion of testimony about third-party abuse (victim’s son)	Schermerhorn: such acts in her presence show she reasonably feared imminent unlawful force	State: third-party abuse is outside statutory "past course of conduct" limiting effects-of-battery to abuse of defendant	Court: excluded evidence was not required by statute; trial court did not err
3. Jury instructions on self-defense and effects of battery	Schermerhorn: requested instructions (battered-person sensitivity and appearance-of-danger) better explain subjective/objective interplay and battered-person syndrome	State: final instructions tracked statutory language and pattern instructions	Court: Final Instructions 6 and 7, read together, correctly stated law, adequately conveyed subjective and objective components, and did not impermissibly shift burden of proof
4. Constitutional claim that evidentiary/instruction rulings deprived due process	Schermerhorn: rulings infringed Fifth, Sixth, Fourteenth Amendments and state constitutional rights	State: evidentiary rules governed admissibility; instructions correct as law	Court: federal constitutional arguments rejected as meritless; state constitutional arguments waived for lack of separate analysis

Key Cases Cited

Turner v. State, 953 N.E.2d 1039 (Ind. 2011) (trial court has broad discretion on evidentiary rulings)
Jones v. State, 982 N.E.2d 417 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (de novo review when evidentiary claim raises constitutional issues)
Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (U.S. 1986) (criminal defendant’s right to present a meaningful opportunity to present a defense)
Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (U.S. 1988) (right to present a defense is not absolute; must follow evidentiary rules)
Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (U.S. 1973) (competing interests of reliability and fairness govern admissibility)
Washington v. State, 997 N.E.2d 342 (Ind. 2013) (pattern jury instruction on self-defense adequately explains subjective/objective elements)
Barnhart v. State, 15 N.E.3d 138 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (standard for harmless error in exclusion of evidence)
Marley v. State, 747 N.E.2d 1123 (Ind. 2001) (effects-of-battery defense does not shift burden of proof)
Price v. State, 765 N.E.2d 1245 (Ind. 2002) (jury instructions considered as a whole)
Littler v. State, 871 N.E.2d 276 (Ind. 2007) (victim’s prior violent acts against third parties may be relevant in ordinary self-defense contexts)