Juan Duron v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
71A04-1702-CR-366
| Ind. Ct. App. | Sep 19, 2017Background
- In November 2015, nine-year-old S.W. and her sister A.R. shared a bedroom at Gabriel Rios’s home; Juan Duron, a cousin of Rios, occasionally stayed there.
- In the early morning hours, S.W. testified Duron entered the girls’ bedroom, lay beside her, put his hand into her pants, and inserted a finger; A.R. woke and saw Duron leaving the bed.
- Rios confronted Duron in a separate room after S.W. told her mother what happened; Rios testified Duron remained silent when confronted and then evicted Duron and his girlfriend.
- Duron was charged with Level 1 felony child molesting, testified in his own defense denying the allegations, and was convicted by a jury. The trial court sentenced him to 32 years.
- On appeal Duron argued the trial court abused its discretion by (1) admitting testimony of his silence when confronted by Rios, (2) admitting S.W.’s out-of-court statement to her mother as an excited utterance (and alleged Confrontation Clause violation), and (3) excluding evidence of a poor relationship between Duron and S.W. as impeachment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Duron) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of testimony that Duron remained silent when confronted by a private citizen | Admission was proper and not constitutionally barred; trial court did not abuse discretion | Admission implicated the Fifth Amendment and Rule 403 unfair prejudice; court should have analyzed constitutional and evidentiary rules before admitting silence | Court affirmed: Fifth Amendment inapplicable because silence occurred before police involvement; evidence not unfairly prejudicial |
| Admission of S.W.’s statement to her mother (excited utterance) / Confrontation Clause | S.W. testified at trial and was cross-examined; mother’s testimony admissible as excited utterance; no Confrontation Clause problem | Admission was testimonial hearsay and violated the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation | Court affirmed: Confrontation Clause not violated because declarant (S.W.) testified and was available for cross-examination; appellant waived detailed challenge to excited-utterance ruling |
| Exclusion of evidence about Duron and S.W.’s purported poor relationship (impeachment/motive to fabricate) | Exclusion proper as irrelevant under Rule 401 | Evidence would show motive to fabricate and was admissible for impeachment | Court affirmed: issue waived for lack of developed argument; trial court did not abuse discretion in deeming it irrelevant |
| Evidentiary standard / trial court discretion review | Trial court acted within discretion in evidentiary rulings | Appellant contended errors in admitting/excluding evidence required reversal | Court applied abuse-of-discretion standard and found no abuse; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231 (Sup. Ct. 1980) (silence before police custody not protected by Fifth Amendment)
- Wilson v. State, 765 N.E.2d 1265 (Ind. 2002) (standard: admission/exclusion of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864 (Ind. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion definition in evidentiary rulings)
- Fowler v. State, 829 N.E.2d 459 (Ind. 2005) (Confrontation Clause requires witness availability for cross-examination)
- Ingram v. State, 715 N.E.2d 405 (Ind. 1999) (definition and inquiry for unfair prejudice under Rule 403)
- House v. State, 535 N.E.2d 103 (Ind. 1989) (silence or equivocal response may be admissible as tacit admission)