Houston v. State
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1905
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Gruzinsky was charged with failure to ensure school attendance for A.L. (26 unexcused absences, 45 tardies) for 2009–2010; notices served in Dec. 2009 and Jan. 2010.
- Houston was charged with failure to ensure attendance for R.H. (27 unexcused absences) for 2009–2010; notice served March 2, 2010.
- Gruzinsky’s bench trial on Jan. 3, 2011 admitted A.L.’s referral and attendance records as State’s Exhibit 1 over hearsay objection; McFadden testified as custodian.
- Houston’s bench trial on Nov. 1, 2010 admitted R.H.’s referral and attendance records through Voss’s testimony; defense objected, objection overruled.
- Gruzinsky was found guilty and sentenced to 90 days, suspended to probation; Houston was found guilty and sentenced to 180 days, suspended to probation.
- On appeal, Gruzinsky and Houston consolidated their appeals; a verified stipulation of record was accepted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of records under business records | Gruzińsky: records were hearsay and not properly founded as business records. | Gruzinsky: insufficient personal knowledge; records prepared in anticipation of litigation. | Records properly admitted under business records exception; not hearsay. |
| Effective assistance of counsel for failure to object | Houston: failure to object to hearsay would have been sustained; prejudice from admission. | Houston: objection would have been sustained if raised; prejudice shown. | No ineffective assistance; objection would not have changed outcome; admissibility supported. |
Key Cases Cited
- Edwards v. State, 930 N.E.2d 48 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Rolland v. State, 851 N.E.2d 1042 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (foundation requirements for business records sponsor)
- In re Adoption of M.A.S., 815 N.E.2d 216 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (statutory filing of reports supports admissibility as business records)
- Boggs v. State, 928 N.E.2d 855 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Stephenson v. State, 864 N.E.2d 1022 (Ind. 2007) (ineffective assistance standard; prejudice required)
- Overstreet v. State, 877 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (objection must be sustained to establish ineffective assistance)
- Benefield v. State, 945 N.E.2d 791 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (discretion in evaluating trial strategy; defers to trial court)