John H. Hill v. State of Indiana
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 51
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On Dec. 18, 2013 police responded to a 911 hang-up at Hill's home; officer found Ashley (Hill’s wife) visibly upset with torn shirt, scratches, a puffy eye, and she gave a written sworn statement accusing Hill of assault and preventing her from calling 911.
- The State charged John H. Hill with criminal confinement (Class C), domestic battery (Class D and Class A misdemeanor counts), and interference with reporting a crime (Class A misdemeanor).
- Ashley later told the prosecutor (April 22, 2014) that she had lied to police; defense listed her as a witness at trial while the State declined to call her.
- On trial, the State moved in limine to exclude Ashley’s testimony and recommended appointment of counsel for her, warning of possible perjury exposure; Ashley retained counsel and invoked the Fifth Amendment when asked about the incident outside the jury’s presence.
- The trial court granted the State’s motion in limine; Hill nonetheless presented other witnesses (including Ashley’s mother) and the jury convicted Hill on all counts. Hill appealed arguing the State improperly interfered with his defense by eliciting or causing Ashley’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State improperly interfered with defendant’s right to present a defense by prompting the witness to invoke the Fifth Amendment | State: It did not interfere; it properly cautioned a witness about potential criminal exposure and sought counsel appointment to avoid suborning perjury | Hill: Prosecutor’s warnings intimidated Ashley, caused her to invoke the Fifth, and thus deprived Hill of a material defense witness | Court: No reversible error — (1) Hill waived contemporaneous objections; (2) Hill invited the issue by putting Ashley on the stand; (3) prosecutor’s statements were proper cautioning; exclusion was not an abuse of discretion and any error was harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Farris v. State, 818 N.E.2d 63 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (standard for reviewing trial court evidentiary rulings — abuse of discretion)
- Swingley v. State, 739 N.E.2d 132 (Ind. 2000) (harmless-error assessment requires evaluating probable impact on jury)
- Sylvester v. State, 698 N.E.2d 1126 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (exclusion of cumulative testimony is harmless)
- Shoultz v. State, 995 N.E.2d 647 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (motions in limine do not preserve evidentiary errors absent contemporaneous objection)
- Heavrin v. State, 675 N.E.2d 1075 (Ind. 1996) (failure to object to prosecutorial remarks waives claim on appeal)
- Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904 (Ind. 2005) (invited error doctrine bars relief for errors a party induced)
- Brewington v. State, 7 N.E.3d 946 (Ind. 2014) (strategic trial decisions can constitute invited error)
- Johnson v. State, 747 N.E.2d 623 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (exclusion of defense evidence is harmless where independent evidence supports conviction)
- Kitchen v. U.S., 227 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2000) (to show coercion of a witness, defendant must show attempt to coerce and that attempt actually influenced the witness’s decision to testify)