Maurice E. Hilliard v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
48A05-1609-CR-2087
| Ind. Ct. App. | Mar 15, 2017Background
- Maurice E. Hilliard pleaded guilty to two counts of intimidation reduced to Class A misdemeanors and received two consecutive one-year sentences, suspended and to be served on home detention via community corrections.
- The State filed a notice (later amended) alleging Hilliard violated home detention terms and committed a new offense: battery with a deadly weapon on April 30, 2016.
- At the probation-revocation hearing the State called only Detective Clifford Cole, who relayed witness identifications and investigatory statements about the stabbing.
- Hilliard objected that the court relied solely on inadmissible hearsay; the prosecutor declined to call the alleged victim to avoid subjecting him to the hearing.
- The trial court found Hilliard violated probation based on the evidence presented (specifically paragraph 3B regarding the new offense) and ordered service of the previously suspended two-year sentence.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the hearsay evidence given its trustworthiness and cumulative nature.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by admitting hearsay at the probation-revocation hearing | State: Hearsay from police investigation was admissible in revocation proceedings; statements had indicia of reliability and substantial guarantees of trustworthiness | Hilliard: Court relied solely on inadmissible hearsay; admitting it violated due process and required reversal | Court: No error — revocation hearings allow more flexible evidentiary rules; hearsay with substantial guarantees of trustworthiness admissible; cumulative weaker hearsay did not warrant reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Holmes v. State, 923 N.E.2d 479 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings and abuse of discretion)
- Monroe v. State, 899 N.E.2d 688 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (probation/community corrections is conditional liberty, not a right)
- Reyes v. State, 868 N.E.2d 438 (Ind. 2007) (hearsay admissible in revocation hearings only if it has substantial guarantees of trustworthiness)
- Wilkerson v. State, 918 N.E.2d 458 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (hearsay statements to police can support revocation)
- Sutton v. State, 689 N.E.2d 452 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (erroneous admission of cumulative hearsay is not reversible error)