Larell P. Isom v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
18A02-1611-CR-2642
| Ind. Ct. App. | May 16, 2017Background
- Early-morning 911 call from Isom’s apartment; officers found the door with a broken latch and a naked, bleeding Heather Isom fleeing the apartment.
- Heather spontaneously told officers on scene, without questioning, “he’s doing it again,” while pointing at Larell Isom.
- Police located and arrested Larell Isom; State charged him with Level 6 felony battery with moderate bodily injury.
- At a pretrial motion in limine, defense challenged the statement under Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b); court ruled the remark admissible as an excited utterance and under 404(b).
- Heather did not appear at trial; her out-of-court statement was admitted (officer repeated it) without a contemporaneous objection at trial.
- Jury convicted; Isom appealed claiming Confrontation Clause error (he had objected pretrial only on 404(b) grounds).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admission of Heather’s out-of-court statement violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause | State: Statement was nontestimonial (excited utterance during an ongoing emergency) and admissible; admission did not violate Confrontation Clause | Isom: Admission of the victim’s statement while she was unavailable denied his right to confront the witness (testimonial/ unavailable) | Court affirmed: statement was nontestimonial (spontaneous during an ongoing emergency); no fundamental error and Confrontation Clause not violated |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. State, 51 N.E.3d 446 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (motion in limine without contemporaneous trial objection does not preserve error)
- Gill v. State, 730 N.E.2d 709 (Ind. 2000) (cannot raise new grounds on appeal that were not asserted at trial)
- Absher v. State, 866 N.E.2d 350 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (fundamental error doctrine is narrow; mere prejudice insufficient)
- Benson v. State, 762 N.E.2d 748 (Ind. 2002) (criteria for fundamental error requires error make a fair trial impossible)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial out-of-court statements unless declarant unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity for cross-examination)
- Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (2011) (test for whether statements have primary purpose of creating out-of-court substitute for trial testimony)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (statements made to resolve an ongoing emergency are nontestimonial)
- Garner v. State, 777 N.E.2d 721 (Ind. 2002) (prosecution must make good faith effort to obtain witness for trial to establish unavailability under Confrontation Clause)