Richard Steele v. State of Indiana
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 584
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- On June 25, 2013, Richard Steele’s long‑term partner S.M. sustained a facial/eye injury; their 12‑year‑old daughter R.S. was present.
- S.M. went to Methodist Hospital the next day; forensic nurse examiner Nicolette Baer examined S.M., mapped/photographed injuries, prepared a forensic medical report, and documented that S.M. and R.S. said Steele punched S.M. A police officer was present during part of the assessment.
- The State charged Steele with multiple counts: misdemeanor and felony domestic battery and battery counts based on presence of a child and prior convictions. At trial S.M. testified the injury was from tripping; R.S. did not testify.
- Over Steele’s objections the court admitted Baer’s testimony and the forensic medical report under the medical‑diagnosis hearsay exception (Ind. Evidence Rule 803(4)). The jury convicted Steele on four counts; the court merged them into one Class D felony domestic battery conviction and imposed a 545‑day sentence.
- Steele appealed, challenging (1) admission of Baer’s testimony and medical report as hearsay, (2) sufficiency of the evidence to support the domestic battery conviction, and (3) alleged double jeopardy from multiple guilty findings.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Steele's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of forensic nurse testimony/medical report | Statements to Baer were for medical diagnosis/treatment and thus admissible under Evid. R. 803(4) | Baer acted as a law‑enforcement adjunct collecting evidence; statements were hearsay | Admission affirmed — statements were nontestimonial, pertinent to diagnosis/treatment, and admissible under 803(4) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Class D domestic battery | S.M.’s injury, Baer’s exam, and statements by S.M. and R.S. identifying Steele supported conviction | Conviction relied on inadmissible hearsay and S.M.’s trial testimony that she tripped | Affirmed — evidence and reasonable inferences support jury verdict beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Double jeopardy from multiple guilty findings | Merger of the multiple findings into one conviction avoided double jeopardy; additional findings were not reduced to separate judgments/sentences | Entry of multiple guilty findings (and a fifth judge‑found guilty count) violated right to jury and subjected Steele to double jeopardy | Affirmed — no double jeopardy; merged into single conviction and extra findings were not reduced to separate judgments/sentences |
| Confrontation Clause / testimonial nature of statements | Forensic nurse’s primary purpose was medical; statements were nontestimonial and Crawford not implicated | Presence of police and evidence collection made statements testimonial | Court held statements were nontestimonial given the medical purpose of Baer’s exam and protocol |
Key Cases Cited
- VanPatten v. State, 986 N.E.2d 255 (Ind. 2013) (test for admitting statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment and reliability inquiry)
- McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124 (Ind. 2005) (standard that appellate court will not reweigh evidence or judge credibility)
- Perry v. State, 956 N.E.2d 41 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (identification of perpetrator may be admissible in medical‑purpose statements in domestic/sexual violence cases)
- Palacios v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1026 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (upholding conviction where victim’s trial testimony conflicted with earlier statements to police about being hit)
- Green v. State, 856 N.E.2d 703 (Ind. 2006) (merged findings that are not reduced to judgment or sentence do not implicate double jeopardy)
- Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999) (double jeopardy principles under Indiana Constitution)