Dewayne M. Townsend v. State of Indiana
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 401
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- On June 13, 2014, Dewayne Townsend went to Ashleigh Fryar’s apartment to see their newborn, left, then returned and was denied entry; he kicked in the front door and entered.
- Fryar called (and later texted) 911; responding officers observed a forced-open door and broken frame. Townsend admitted to police that he kicked in the door.
- Fryar testified at trial that after Townsend entered he pulled her hair and grabbed her face; she had earlier written a notarized letter recanting the battery allegation but testified at trial that the letter was not true.
- The State admitted (without objection) the 911 texts and Fryar’s letter; it sought to admit a redacted recording of Fryar’s phone calls from the police station (State’s Exhibit 25) as a prior consistent statement to rebut alleged recent fabrication.
- The trial court admitted Exhibit 25 over Townsend’s hearsay objection; the jury convicted Townsend of residential entry (Class D felony) but was deadlocked on domestic battery. Townsend appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior consistent statements (State’s Ex. 25) | Exhibit 25 rebuts implied charge of recent fabrication and is admissible under Evidence Rule 801(d)(1)(B) | Exhibit 25 is hearsay; there was no express or implied charge of recent fabrication so prior consistent statement rule does not apply | Trial court abused discretion admitting Exhibit 25, but error was harmless given independent evidence (admission to police, officers’ observations); conviction stands |
| Sufficiency of evidence / consent defense to residential entry | State: evidence (forced door, officer observations, Townsend’s admission) proves knowing breaking and entry beyond reasonable doubt | Townsend: he reasonably believed he had consent to enter (shared child, prior access, welfare concern) | Evidence was sufficient; jury rationally rejected Townsend’s consent/welfare defense; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Guilmette v. State, 14 N.E.3d 38 (Ind. 2014) (trial court admissibility rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Blount v. State, 22 N.E.3d 559 (Ind. 2014) (trial court discretion extends to hearsay rulings)
- Modesitt v. State, 578 N.E.2d 649 (Ind. 1991) (discussing limits on prior consistent statements to prevent impermissible bolstering)
- Bassett v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1201 (Ind. 2008) (prior consistent statements admissible if made before motive to fabricate arose)
- Corbally v. State, 5 N.E.3d 463 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (distinguishing general credibility impeachment from charges of recent fabrication)
- Martin v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1213 (Ind. 2000) (use of prior inconsistent statements for impeachment)
- Willis v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1065 (Ind. 2015) (standard for sufficiency review)
- McKinney v. State, 653 N.E.2d 115 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (burden on defendant to prove consent defense; belief in permission must be reasonable)