Deriq Watters v. State of Indiana
2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 570
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- In 2007 Watters pleaded to Class B felony dealing in cocaine and received a 20-year sentence with 10 years executed and 10 years suspended on probation.
- After release on probation, probation officer Megan Enright learned Watters had been arrested in Marion County and believed he had committed a new offense.
- The State filed a petition to revoke Watters’ suspended sentence.
- At the revocation hearing the State introduced two uncertified documents: an Abstract of Judgment showing a Class B felony robbery conviction in Marion County and a plea agreement purportedly resolving that case.
- Watters objected that those exhibits were inadmissible hearsay because they were uncertified; the trial court overruled the objections and admitted the documents.
- The trial court revoked probation and ordered Watters to serve the remainder of his suspended sentence; the Court of Appeals reversed for lack of reliable evidence supporting admission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether uncertified out-of-county conviction documents were admissible at probation revocation | State relied on the Abstract of Judgment and plea agreement as proof of a new conviction | Watters argued the documents were inadmissible hearsay because they were uncertified and not corroborated | Reversed: uncertified documents without certification, affidavit, or corroborating testimony lacked indicia of reliability and were inadmissible |
| Whether hearsay may be admitted at a probation revocation hearing | State asserted hearsay is admissible under the relaxed rules for revocation hearings | Watters contended due process requires reliable evidence when liberty is at stake | Court: hearsay may be admitted but must have substantial indicia of reliability; these exhibits did not meet that standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547 (Ind. 1999) (probation revocation procedures are flexible and strict evidence rules do not apply, but hearsay must be reliable)
- Reyes v. State, 868 N.E.2d 438 (Ind. 2007) (hearsay admissible at revocation if it has substantial guarantee of trustworthiness; affidavits can suffice)
- Peterson v. State, 909 N.E.2d 494 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (discussing admissibility of hearsay in revocation proceedings)
- Pitman v. State, 749 N.E.2d 557 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (certification of out-of-county conviction documents provides substantial indicia of reliability)
- Christie v. State, 939 N.E.2d 691 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (courts may take judicial notice of convictions from another county for probation revocation, but documents must be reliable)
- C.S. v. State, 735 N.E.2d 273 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (trial court has broad discretion on admissibility; abuse required to reverse)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (due process protections apply when liberty is at stake in parole/probation revocation)