State v. Chavez
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1640
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- Chavez is charged with two murders; pretrial motions sought to exclude codefendants' statements implicating Chavez.
- Trial court granted Chavez's motion to exclude; interlocutory appeal certified and accepted by the Court of Appeals.
- Struss reportedly told police that Valdivia and Chavez were involved in the Bar-Rio killings with others; Redmon reported Mark Chavez's statements about the murders and body disposal.
- Mark Chavez and Valdivia are unavailable: Valdivia's location unknown; Mark retains Fifth Amendment rights against testifying.
- The appellate court held the statements inadmissible hearsay under Indiana Evidence Rules and did not address the Sixth Amendment confrontation issue.
- Court affirmed the trial court’s exclusion based on hearsay rules, noting Crawford does not compel admission of these statements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Mark's statements admissible as party-opponent or under an exception? | Chavez argues Mark's statements are party-opponent or fall under an exception. | Chavez contends the statements are not admissible hearsay as party-opponent or applicable exception. | Statements inadmissible hearsay; not party-opponent or exception. |
| Are Valdivia's statements admissible as excited utterances? | Valdivia's statements were spontaneous and under stress, supporting admissibility. | State argued excited utterance; but record insufficient to prove timing and reliability. | Valdivia's statements not shown to be admissible excited utterances; excluded. |
| Does Crawford affect the admissibility of the challenged statements? | Crawford would require admission based on reliability; non-testimonial may still be admissible. | Crawford limits testimonial hearsay; does not mandate admission here. | Court declines to reach constitutional issue; relies on hearsay rules to affirm exclusion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boatner v. State, 934 N.E.2d 184 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (hearsay rules emphasize reliability in admissibility)
- Scott v. State, 883 N.E.2d 147 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (court may affirm on any basis in record)
- Jackson v. State, 925 N.E.2d 369 (Ind.2010) (reliability considerations in hearsay exceptions)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (S. Ct. 2004) (Sixth Amendment confrontation applies to testimonial hearsay)