Dee Ward v. State of Indiana
2016 Ind. LEXIS 124
| Ind. | 2016Background
- Dee Ward was charged with multiple offenses after J.M., his girlfriend, sustained extensive bruising; J.M. named Ward as the assailant to a paramedic at the scene and to a forensic nurse at the hospital.
- J.M. did not appear for depositions or trial; the State sought to admit her out-of-court identifications through the paramedic and forensic nurse.
- Ward objected that those statements were testimonial hearsay in violation of the Sixth Amendment and Article 1, §13 of the Indiana Constitution.
- The trial court admitted the statements; Ward was convicted of C-felony battery and A-misdemeanor domestic battery and appealed.
- The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed (granted transfer), held Ward preserved his state-constitutional claim, and found the statements non‑testimonial and admissible under the Confrontation Clause and Evidence Rule 803(4).
Issues
| Issue | Ward's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of Indiana constitutional claim | Ward’s objections were federal-only; state claim waived | Ward preserved both federal and state objections at trial | Ward preserved the Article 1, §13 claim; trial objections met Ind. Evid. R. 103(a) |
| Scope of Indiana "face-to-face" right (Art. 1, §13) | Article requires face-to-face confrontation of declarants | Face-to-face requirement is satisfied when testifying witnesses report declarant’s statements | "Face-to-face" right applies to witnesses; paramedic and nurse testified in court, so Indiana right not violated |
| Federal Confrontation Clause — whether statements were testimonial | Statements identifying attacker were testimonial and thus barred without cross-examination | Statements were made primarily for medical treatment/safety (non-testimonial) | Statements to paramedic and forensic nurse were non‑testimonial under the primary-purpose test; admissible |
| Admissibility of forensic nurse’s identification (medical-purpose exception) | Forensic nurse acted as police collaborator; identity served investigatory purpose | Identifying attacker was integral to medical treatment, safety planning, documentation, and referrals | Forensic nurse’s elicitation of identity served primary medical/safety purposes; statements admissible (majority); dissent would find nurse’s identification testimonial given investigatory aspects |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (statement is testimonial if intended as substitute for trial testimony)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (primary‑purpose test: statements during an ongoing emergency are nontestimonial)
- Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (primary‑purpose inquiry is fact‑sensitive; ongoing emergency is one factor)
- Ohio v. Clark, 135 S. Ct. 2173 (statements to non‑law‑enforcement actors are less likely testimonial; context and questioner identity matter)
- Pierce v. State, 677 N.E.2d 39 (Ind. 1997) (hearsay reported by a live witness can satisfy Indiana face‑to‑face language)
- Perry v. State, 956 N.E.2d 41 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (forensic/medical identification statements in child abuse/sexual assault/domestic violence cases may serve medical purposes and be nontestimonial)