Dwana Prince v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A04-1604-CR-837
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jan 13, 2017Background
- On May 25, 2015, Dwana Prince reported a carjacking by a Black male; police located her crashed car and arrested a driver matching the description.
- Officer Clayton later received an anonymous tip alleging Prince lied and that her husband had drug problems; Clayton relayed that tip and re-contacted investigators.
- Detective Buchman interviewed Prince at her home, recording the interview without her knowledge; during it Buchman made statements asserting Prince’s husband had a drug problem and had given keys away.
- Prince admitted on the recorded interview that she had lied about being carjacked; the initially arrested driver was released.
- At trial, Prince objected to (1) Officer Clayton’s testimony recounting the unnamed informant’s statements and (2) portions of Buchman’s recorded statements as hearsay; the court admitted both (giving a limiting instruction only for Clayton’s testimony) and the jury convicted Prince of false reporting.
- The Court of Appeals found admission of both items erroneous as hearsay but deemed the errors harmless because Prince’s recorded confession was admitted and central to the verdict.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Prince's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Officer Clayton’s testimony repeating an unnamed informant’s assertions was admissible under the course-of-investigation exception to hearsay | Testimony was offered to explain police action, not for truth, so admissible under the course-of-investigation rule | Testimony was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial; it went beyond explaining police conduct and asserted damaging facts about Prince and her husband | Error to admit: much of the informant’s detailed allegations were prejudicial and not necessary to explain police actions |
| Whether Detective Buchman’s factual statements on the recorded interview were admissible because they were used to elicit responses | Statements were interrogation prompts, not offered for truth, so not hearsay (Strong) | Buchman’s statements were assertions of fact (not mere questions), no jury admonishment was given, and they were prejudicial hearsay | Error to admit: Buchman’s factual assertions were hearsay and should have been redacted or admonished against |
| Whether any admission error was reversible given the recorded confession | N/A (responding to harmless-error analysis) | N/A | Harmless error: Prince’s recorded confession that she lied made the hearsay admissions non-reversible in context |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in admitting evidence | Court discretion favors admission; course-of-investigation and elicitation doctrines apply | Admission exceeded permissible scope and prejudiced Prince | Abuse of discretion found as to the content admitted, but conviction affirmed due to harmless-error rule |
Key Cases Cited
- Blount v. State, 22 N.E.3d 559 (Ind. 2014) (articulates limits and three-part test for course-of-investigation hearsay)
- VanPatten v. State, 986 N.E.2d 255 (Ind. 2013) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- Strong v. State, 538 N.E.2d 924 (Ind. 1989) (police interview prompts may be non-hearsay when used to elicit responses; admonishment considered)
- Smith v. State, 721 N.E.2d 213 (Ind. 1999) (detective’s factual assertions in interview are hearsay where no admonishment given)
- Lewis v. State, 34 N.E.3d 240 (Ind. 2015) (harmless error standard for appellate review)