Robert Smith v. State of Indiana
2012 Ind. LEXIS 600
| Ind. | 2012Background
- Smith was placed on home detention under Marion County Community Corrections in Jan 2010 after pleading guilty to operating a motor vehicle after license forfeiture for life.
- On May 17, 2010, a Notice of Community Corrections Violation alleged eight violations, including positive drug tests and failure to submit urine screens and pay monetary obligations.
- A bifurcated revocation hearing occurred on June 10 and June 24, 2010, during which State’s Exhibit 1 (five lab reports) and a lab supervisor’s affidavit were admitted.
- Smith objected to Exhibit 1 as violating confrontation rights and reliability concerns, arguing it was not specific to his tests and relied on general lab procedures.
- The trial court admitted Exhibit 1, found violations, revoked Smith’s placement, and imposed two years’ incarceration; Smith appealed, raising confrontation and good-time-credit issues; the matter was transferred to the Indiana Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admission of State’s Exhibit 1 violated due process confrontation | Smith argues Crawford-type confrontation rights apply | State contends Reyes substantial-trustworthiness standard suffices | No violation; evidence is substantially trustworthy under Reyes. |
| Whether Crawford affects due process analysis in revocation hearings | Crawford changes confrontation in revocation proceedings | Revocation hearings use due process standard, not Crawford, per Morrissey/Gagnon framework | Crawford does not govern revocation hearings; Reyes framework applies. |
| Whether the trial court properly found State’s Exhibit 1 substantially trustworthy | Affidavit and lab reports were unreliable without live testimony | Affidavit by lab supervisor shows expertise and proper procedures | Yes; the affidavit and lab records support trustworthiness. |
| Whether Smith’s appeal is moot regarding retroactive application of amended statute for good-time credit | Retroactivity and equal protection concerns should be addressed | Remedies moot after sentence served; Cottingham controls | Arguments regarding retroactive application are moot; declined to address. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972) (parole-revocation procedures; flexible due process requirements)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. 1973) (probation revocation due process; use of affidavits/depositions/corroborating evidence)
- Reyes v. State, 868 N.E.2d 438 (Ind. 2007) (adopts substantial-trustworthiness test for hearsay in revocation proceedings)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) ( Sixth Amendment confrontation right; testimonial statements requirement)
- Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547 (Ind. 1999) (due process rights in revocation hearings; policy of flexibility)