Scott A. Estep v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
02A04-1608-CR-1916
| Ind. Ct. App. | Mar 10, 2017Background
- Scott A. Estep and his girlfriend Maria Nieves had a history of drinking, arguing, and prior incidents of domestic violence; Nieves reported physical assaults by Estep in April 2013 (excluded as too remote) and June 2015 (admitted).
- On May 3, 2016, after drinking, Estep and Nieves argued; Nieves later appeared with fresh red marks and bleeding and told witnesses Estep had grabbed and hit her. Police photographed injuries; Estep was arrested.
- The State charged Estep with battery, resisting law enforcement, and interference with reporting; at trial Estep objected to admission of the June 2015 prior-battery evidence under Evidence Rule 404(b).
- The trial court admitted testimony about the June 2015 battery solely to show the nature of the parties’ relationship and gave a limiting instruction to the jury.
- The jury convicted Estep of battery; a prior-battery finding elevated the offense to a level 5 felony. The trial court sentenced Estep to six years executed. Estep appealed contesting admissibility of the prior-battery evidence and the sentence’s appropriateness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Estep) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior-battery evidence under Evid. R. 404(b) | The June 2015 battery is admissible to show the nature of the relationship and to rebut misleading testimony about whether Estep intentionally harmed Nieves. | The prior act was too remote, irrelevant because the parties’ intimate relationship was undisputed, and unfairly prejudicial. | Court: No abuse of discretion; prior 2015 battery admissible to show relationship; limiting instruction mitigated prejudice. |
| Use of hearsay statements to witnesses | Statements were admissible (State relied on excited-utterance exception). | Estep objected to hearsay admission. | Court: Nieves’s statements to Buchwald and Officer Miller were admitted as excited utterances and Estep did not contest those on appeal. |
| Harmless-error alternative | State argued any error would be harmless given multiple admissible sources (statements, photos, officer testimony). | Estep argued prejudice from prior-act evidence. | Court: Even if error occurred, it would be harmless in light of other evidence. |
| Appropriateness of six-year sentence under App. R. 7(B) | Sentence within statutory range and supported by: timing (committed soon after prior sentence), serial battery of same victim, extensive criminal history, failure to reform. | Estep argued he is not among the worst offenders and his prior most-serious was only a level 6 felony. | Court: Sentence not inappropriate; affirmed (within 1–6 year range; advisory 3 years). |
Key Cases Cited
- Scisney v. State, 55 N.E.3d 321 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- Vermillion v. State, 978 N.E.2d 459 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (Evidence Rule 404(b) list illustrative, not exhaustive)
- Ortiz v. State, 716 N.E.2d 345 (Ind. 1999) (Rule 404(b) admissibility requires relevance to issue other than propensity and Rule 403 balancing)
- Davis v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1043 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (door-opening: misleading testimony can render otherwise inadmissible evidence admissible)
- Fuentes v. State, 10 N.E.3d 68 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (discussing Rule 403 unfair-prejudice analysis)
- Ware v. State, 816 N.E.2d 1167 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (presumption that juries follow limiting instructions)
- Kunberger v. State, 46 N.E.3d 966 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (App. R. 7(B) appellate review role)
- Helsley v. State, 43 N.E.3d 225 (Ind. 2015) (App. R. 7(B) standard: not whether another sentence is more appropriate)
- Prater v. State, 59 N.E.3d 314 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (defendant bears burden to show sentence inappropriate)
- Blair v. State, 62 N.E.3d 424 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (advisory sentence as legislative starting point)