Terrius Anderson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A02-1705-CR-976
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 7, 2017Background
- In March 2016 Detective Sergeant Karen Dague (human-trafficking unit) interviewed N.H. in an undercover vehicle in a public parking lot; N.H. appeared frightened when Terrius Anderson stopped nearby.
- Detective Dague observed Anderson sitting with his pants off, stroking his erect penis while looking at her and N.H.; Anderson then revved his car toward the detective, who jumped away.
- Anderson was charged with multiple offenses, including Level 6 felony "conducting a performance harmful to minors" and Class B misdemeanor criminal recklessness.
- At bench trial Dague testified she believed N.H. was fourteen, explaining that N.H. told her and Homeland Security had verified the information; Anderson objected on hearsay grounds and the trial court overruled.
- The trial court convicted Anderson of conducting a performance harmful to minors and criminal recklessness and sentenced him; the Court of Appeals reviewed the admissibility of Dague’s testimony about N.H.’s age.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of detective’s testimony about victim’s age | State argued Dague had personal knowledge of N.H.’s age and thus testimony was admissible | Anderson argued the testimony was inadmissible hearsay because Dague’s knowledge rested on out-of-court statements (N.H. and Homeland Security) | Court held the testimony was hearsay and inadmissible; trial court abused its discretion in admitting it |
| Prejudice from erroneous admission | State contended exclusion would unduly restrict proof of age generally | Anderson contended admission tainted conviction for conduct harmful to minors | Court rejected State’s slippery-slope concern, found multiple proper hearsay exceptions exist but were not used, and concluded prejudice warranted vacating the felony conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Curley v. State, 777 N.E.2d 58 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (standard for admissibility of evidence and abuse-of-discretion review)
- Craig v. State, 630 N.E.2d 207 (Ind. 1994) (definition of hearsay and inadmissibility absent an exception)
- Moore v. State, 839 N.E.2d 178 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (court may affirm on any legal basis in the record)
- Hirsey v. State, 852 N.E.2d 1008 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (instruction to consider evidence most favorable to trial court’s ruling)
- Hengstler v. State, 189 N.E. 623 (Ind. 1934) (recognition that testimony about a witness’s age by reference to family or other sources can be competent evidence)