Mauricio D. Sharp v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
05A05-1610-CR-2284
| Ind. Ct. App. | Apr 13, 2017Background
- Police received a tip from Huntington County that a red Ford Mustang might be stolen and possibly headed to Hartford City.
- Officer McKissack spotted a red Mustang matching that description; he and two other officers attempted to stop the vehicle driven by Mauricio D. Sharp.
- Sharp did not immediately stop despite police lights and sirens; he drove to his aunt’s house, exited the vehicle, attempted to get in the back seat, and was arrested; a young child was later found in the back seat.
- The State charged Sharp with neglect of a dependent and Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement; the neglect charge was later dismissed.
- At retrial the prosecutor elicited testimony that officers were on the lookout for a reported stolen Mustang; Sharp objected as hearsay. The court admitted the testimony but admonished the jury twice that the report was not evidence of guilt and limited further references.
- The jury convicted Sharp of Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement; the trial court sentenced him and Sharp appealed, arguing the admission of the out-of-court stolen-vehicle report was inadmissible hearsay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admission of testimony that officers received a report that a red Mustang was stolen was inadmissible hearsay and required reversal | State: testimony was admissible to explain officers’ conduct (why they tried to stop the car) and the court properly limited/ admonished the jury | Sharp: the out-of-court report was hearsay offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted and was therefore inadmissible; its admission was prejudicial | Court: even if the statement was inadmissible hearsay, admission was at most harmless error given limited references, jury admonitions, and overwhelming independent evidence of guilt |
Key Cases Cited
- Boatner v. State, 934 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (standard of review for admission of evidence is abuse of discretion)
- Remy v. State, 17 N.E.3d 396 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (improper admission of evidence is harmless unless it affects substantial rights; assess probable impact on jury)
- Hoglund v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1230 (Ind. 2012) (same principle regarding harmless error review)
- Maxey v. State, 730 N.E.2d 158 (Ind. 2000) (caution that officer testimony about police work may be prejudicial where it consists solely of inadmissible evidence; admission can nonetheless be harmless depending on context)