Thaddaus Scott v. State of Indiana, 139 N.E.3d 1148

Scott assaulted his pregnant girlfriend, Maria Cook; Cook gave recorded statements to police identifying Scott and initially cooperated.
Scott was arrested; while jailed he made repeated recorded phone calls to Cook urging her to change her story and to skip depositions and trial so his case would be dismissed.
A court-issued no-contact order prohibited Scott from contacting Cook, but he allegedly called her hundreds of times and was able to reach her on many occasions.
Cook failed to appear for multiple depositions and did not appear at trial; the State sought admission of her prior statements under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine and moved to add obstruction and invasion-of-privacy charges.
The trial court held forfeiture hearings, concluded Scott’s misconduct caused Cook’s unavailability, admitted her out-of-court statements through officers, and a jury convicted Scott of battery (pregnant woman), obstruction of justice, and multiple invasion-of-privacy counts.
On appeal Scott argued (1) admission of Cook’s statements violated his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights and (2) insufficient evidence supported the obstruction conviction; the court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admission of Cook’s prior statements violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause	State: Scott forfeited confrontation rights by wrongdoing (repeated calls pressuring Cook not to testify); forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception applies	Scott: Calls were less egregious than bribery/murder cases; did not intend to procure Cook’s absence	Court: Forfeiture proven by preponderance; repeated, targeted calls were designed to keep Cook from testifying, so admission did not violate Confrontation Clause
Whether evidence was sufficient to convict Scott of obstruction of justice (Level 5 felony)	State: Calls and promises (assistance with children, urging nonappearance) constituted coercion/offer of benefit to induce Cook to withhold testimony during a domestic-violence prosecution	Scott: Calls were not coercive and contained no false statements or explicit threats/consequences	Court: Sufficient evidence—repeated harassing calls plus implication of consequence/benefit supported coercion and the Level 5 enhancement (offers/promises during domestic-violence pendency)

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial out-of-court statements unless witness unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity for cross-examination)
Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008) (forfeiture-by-wrongdoing requires defendant acted with purpose to make witness unavailable)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (forfeiture doctrine protects integrity of judicial process when defendants procure witness silence)
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878) (early articulation of forfeiture-by-wrongdoing principle)
McElfresh v. State, 51 N.E.3d 103 (Ind. 2016) (repeated communications from custody pressuring a witness can support attempted obstruction/pressure sufficient for conviction)
Brown v. State, 859 N.E.2d 1269 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (calls from jail not coercive where no consequence was indicated to induce witness nonappearance)
Sheppard v. State, 484 N.E.2d 984 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985) (coercion includes harassment or repeated contacts that exert pressure on a witness)
Carr v. State, 106 N.E.3d 546 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (forfeiture found where defendant and associates offered significant bribe to prevent witness testimony)
Boyd v. State, 866 N.E.2d 855 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (forfeiture where defendant murdered a witness after she gave statements to police)
Speers v. State, 999 N.E.2d 850 (Ind. 2013) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings and constitutional-error review)