Michael Ackerman v. State of Indiana, 2016 Ind. LEXIS 238

Background

In 1977, twenty-one-month-old W.W. died; Dr. John Eisele performed an autopsy documenting 35 injuries and opining cause of death as "multiple injuries" and manner as "homicide," though the coroner later listed manner as "undetermined." No charges were filed then.
Decades later (2013) the victim’s sibling I.W. contacted police, provided an eyewitness account implicating Michael Ackerman, prompting a cold-case investigation and Ackerman’s arrest for second-degree murder.
Several original investigators and Dr. Eisele were deceased by trial; the State admitted the coroner’s file (including Eisele’s autopsy report) under the business-records exception. Ackerman objected on Confrontation Clause grounds.
The State called Dr. Dean Hawley (a pathologist who did not perform the autopsy) to give his independent opinion after reviewing the autopsy materials; no contemporaneous objection was made to Hawley’s testimony.
Ackerman moved to dismiss for prejudicial 36-year pre-indictment delay; trial court denied the motion. At a bench trial Ackerman was convicted and sentenced to life with parole; he appealed raising (1) Confrontation Clause challenge to the autopsy report and Hawley’s testimony, (2) due-process claim from delayed prosecution, and (3) sentencing error for considering modern statutes.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Eisele’s autopsy report admitted under business-records exception violated the Confrontation Clause	State: report is non-testimonial business record admissible under Ind. Evid. R. 803(6)	Ackerman: report is testimonial; Eisele unavailable and no prior cross-examination, so admission violated Crawford	Court held report non-testimonial under the primary-purpose test; admission did not violate Confrontation Clause
Whether surrogate pathologist (Dr. Hawley) violated Confrontation Clause by testifying about report	State: Hawley gave independent opinion based on review, permissible under Evid. R. 703	Ackerman: Hawley effectively repeated Eisele’s findings and conclusions, creating a confrontation problem	Court held Hawley’s testimony did not violate Confrontation Clause; even if report were inadmissible, Hawley could offer independent opinion based on materials reviewed
Whether 36-year pre-indictment delay violated Due Process	State: delay justified by new eyewitness disclosure decades later; no deliberate delay to gain advantage	Ackerman: delay caused loss of favorable witnesses/records and substantially prejudiced defense	Court held Ackerman failed to show actual and substantial prejudice or intentional/state justificationless delay; no due-process violation
Whether trial court erred by referencing current sentencing statutes when applying 1976 law	Ackerman: court improperly relied on present sentencing scheme, an abuse of discretion	State: any stray reference was harmless given aggravators and sentence within 1976 range	Court found referencing current scheme improper but harmless; affirmed life-with-parole sentence

Key Cases Cited

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial out-of-court statements unless witness unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity to cross-examine)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (testimonial inquiry uses an objective "primary purpose" test)
Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (2011) (primary-purpose analysis assesses circumstances and parties’ actions objectively)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (forensic certificates are testimonial affidavits implicating Confrontation Clause)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011) (forensic report is testimonial; surrogate testimony cannot substitute for absent certifying analyst)
Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (2012) (plurality and concurrence split on lab reports’ testimonial character; no controlling narrow rationale)
People v. Leach, 980 N.E.2d 570 (Ill. 2012) (autopsy report non-testimonial under Illinois facts and statutes)
State v. Navarette, 294 P.3d 435 (N.M. 2013) (autopsy report testimonial where prepared to preserve evidence for prosecution; surrogate testimony improper)
State v. Frazier, 735 S.E.2d 727 (W. Va. 2012) (autopsy report testimonial where examiner had direct police contact and knowledge of suspect’s arrest/confession)
State v. Medina, 306 P.3d 48 (Ariz. 2013) (autopsy report non-testimonial under both primary-purpose and solemnity analyses)