Jonathen R. Lovelace v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
43A03-1703-CR-596
| Ind. Ct. App. | Aug 31, 2017Background
- Defendant Jonathen R. Lovelace was charged with one count of Level 4 felony child molesting after his five-year-old stepsister A.R. reported touching his penis while they played under her bed.
- A.R. gave a recorded interview to a CPS caseworker three days after the alleged incident and also told her mother; the State sought admission of both statements under Indiana’s Protected Person statute.
- At a January 10 hearing the trial court found A.R. unavailable to testify (could not understand oath) and ruled the out-of-court statements had sufficient indicia of reliability to be admissible.
- At trial Lovelace initially objected pretrial to use of the videotaped interview on Confrontation Clause grounds, but did not object when the State formally offered the videotape during the CPS worker’s testimony and expressly said “No objection.”
- The jury convicted Lovelace; he was also found a habitual offender and sentenced to an aggregate 16 years (2 suspended).
- On appeal Lovelace challenged admission of the videotaped interview as violating his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Lovelace) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admitting A.R.’s videotaped interview violated defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses | Videotape admissible under Protected Person statute; A.R. unavailable; statements bore sufficient indicia of reliability; defendant had opportunity to cross-examine at the pretrial hearing | Admission violated Confrontation Clause because jury heard hearsay recorded interview instead of live testimony | Issue waived on appeal for failure to make a contemporaneous objection at time of admission; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Nicholson v. State, 963 N.E.2d 1096 (Ind. 2012) (standard of appellate review for evidentiary rulings)
- Shinnock v. State, 76 N.E.3d 841 (Ind. 2017) (trial court discretion and admissibility review principles)
- Dilts v. State, 49 N.E.3d 617 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (failure to make contemporaneous objection waives appellate review)
- Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. 2010) (failure to contemporaneously object forfeits claim on appeal)