Harris v. State
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 129
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Hane C. Harris was convicted of multiple child molesting offenses and found to be a habitual offender, with an overall eighty-one year sentence (seventy-nine executed).
- The victim, T.D.S., was around 10 years old at trial and testified via two-way closed-circuit television after a protective-person hearing.
- Harris challenged the CCTV testimony as violating confrontation rights under both the U.S. and Indiana constitutions.
- The trial court allowed CCTV testimony under Indiana Code § 35-37-4-8 after finding that testifying in Harris’s presence would cause serious emotional harm.
- On appeal, Harris also challenged the sentence as to consecutive-imposed terms and the handling of the habitual-offender enhancement; the court affirmed the convictions but remanded to correct the habitual-offender sentencing entry.
- The court ultimately remanded for correction to reflect that the habitual-offender enhancement is an enhancement to the underlying count rather than a separate sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation rights and CCTV testimony | Harris argues CCTV testimony violated confrontation rights due to inadequate showing. | Harris contends the State failed to prove serious emotional harm under §35-37-4-8(B)(i)/(B)(iii). | No constitutional violation; sufficient evidence supported CCTV under §35-37-4-8(B). |
| Constitutional sufficiency for protected-person finding | Harris claims the State failed to prove serious emotional harm or communication inability. | Court properly relied on expert and lay testimony showing harm and communication barriers. | Evidence supported the protective-person determination and CCTV testimony. |
| Consecutive sentencing and habitual-offender enhancement | Court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive sentences and mischaracterizing the habitual-offender enhancement. | Seven aggravators supported consecutive sentencing; habitual-offender enhancement should be an enhancement, not a separate sentence. | No abuse of discretion for consecutive sentencing; remand to correct habitual-offender enhancement as an enhancement to the underlying offense. |
Key Cases Cited
- Broude v. State, 956 N.E.2d 130 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (admission of evidence within trial court discretion; not reversible absent manifest abuse of discretion)
- Collins v. State, 822 N.E.2d 214 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings; defer to trial court when no manifest abuse)
- Tyler v. State, 903 N.E.2d 463 (Ind.2009) (protected-person concept and CCTV testimony framework in Indiana)
- Brady v. State, 575 N.E.2d 981 (Ind.1991) (statutory framework for protecting child witnesses satisfies federal confrontation right)
- Pierce v. State, 677 N.E.2d 39 (Ind.1997) (Indiana confrontation right interpreted broadly in state context)
- Gardner v. State, 641 N.E.2d 641 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) (discussion of face-to-face confrontation in Indiana constitution)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind.2007) (standard for appellate review of sentencing decisions (abuse of discretion))
- Owens v. State, 916 N.E.2d 913 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (requires at least one aggravating factor to impose consecutive sentences)
- Hendrix v. State, 759 N.E.2d 1045 (Ind.2001) (habitual-offender finding as enhancement, not separate sentence)