Perry v. State
956 N.E.2d 41
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Dennis Perry was convicted of strangulation, possession of cocaine, and criminal mischief; rape and criminal confinement felonies were deadlocked.
- N.D. (the victim, Perry's ex-girlfriend) was examined at the hospital after reporting being sexually assaulted and strangled and identified Perry as her attacker.
- N.D.'s statements were recorded in Nurse Calow's medical record and admitted at trial; N.D. did not testify.
- DNA from N.D.'s neck and genitals matched Perry; Perry challenged the medical-record/Hearsay and Confrontation issues and the use of prior domestic-arrest evidence.
- The trial court admitted Nurse Calow's record; Perry testified denying the assault and claiming self-defense; police testimony and defense theory contested the State's case.
- On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, concluding erroneous admission of Perry's five prior arrest/charges involving N.D. and affirming the evidentiary issues related to hearsay but finding sufficient evidence for substantive offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Nurse Calow's medical record | Perry: records and statements are inadmissible hearsay. | Perry: record may be admissible as medical diagnosis/records; statements may be non-testimonial. | Medical record and statements admissible; non-testimonial under Crawford framework. |
| Confrontation rights impact of N.D.'s statements | Perry: statements violate Sixth Amendment confrontation if testimonial. | N.D.'s statements are non-testimonial; Calow's record admissible; Crawford/Bryant/Davis applied. | Statements were non-testimonial and did not violate confrontation rights. |
| Admissibility of prior domestic-violence arrests/charges | State: prior arrests/charges admissible to show motive/identity under Rule 404(b). | Arrests/charges are insufficient foundational proof and unfairly prejudicial. | Trial court erred by admitting only arrests/charges; not sufficient 404(b) foundation; reversible error. |
| Sufficiency/double jeopardy on retrial | State: sufficient evidence exists to sustain convictions; retrial permissible. | If error affects substantial rights, retrial may be barred; double jeopardy concerns. | Reversal and remand; retrial permitted on counts not affected by the error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial vs. nontestimonial hearsay framework)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (primary-purpose framework for testimonial statements in emergencies)
- Michigan v. Bryant, 131 S. Ct. 1143 (U.S. 2011) (objective assessment of interrogation purpose to determine emergency vs. past events)
- Nash v. State, 754 N.E.2d 1021 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (admissibility of medical-diagnosis statements in sexual-abuse cases)
- Dowell v. State, 865 N.E.2d 1059 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (admissibility of medical statements in domestic/sexual abuse context)
- State v. Stahl, 855 N.E.2d 834 (Ohio 2006) (medical examination context and testimonial vs. nontestimonial evidence)