Wayne Hurd v. State of Indiana
9 N.E.3d 720
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Hurd was convicted of Class B misdemeanor battery after a bench trial at which his late-disclosed mother was not allowed to testify.
- The trial court prohibited Brenda Hayden from testifying because she was disclosed the day of trial and had not been previously identified.
- Sentencing imposed a suspended sentence with non-reporting probation and a stay-away restriction broadly surrounding central Indianapolis (large five-block to two-mile radius).
- Susan Schneider’s credible testimony supported the finding of guilt; Hurd’s own testimony contained gaps and the court deemed Susan credible.
- The probation stay-away was later modified to a one-block radius around Susan’s home, but a probation-violation notice alleged violations in the broader area.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether excluding late-disclosed witness was reversible | Hurd: exclusion prejudiced defense; mother would testify to peaceful character. | State: late disclosure warrants exclusion; limited relevance absent corroboration. | Harmless error; exclusion did not affect substantial rights. |
| Whether the original stay-away probation condition was broad and unduly cumbersome | Hurd: condition overly broad and not reasonably related to treatment or public safety. | State: probation conditions reasonably related to treatment and safety. | Abused discretion; condition not reasonably related; remand to vacate pending violations. |
| Mootness of the stay-away order modification | Modification prospective; issue not moot while violations pending. | Modification moot since no effective relief remains. | Not moot; addressed original broad stay-away condition notwithstanding modification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vasquez v. State, 868 N.E.2d 473 (Ind. 2007) (inherent discretion over evidence; review for abuse)
- Wiseheart v. State, 491 N.E.2d 985 (Ind. 1986) (extreme sanctions for belated disclosures require prejudice or purposeful breach)
- Turben v. State, 726 N.E.2d 1245 (Ind. 2000) (trial errors in evidence are harmless absent substantial rights impact)
- Fleener v. State, 656 N.E.2d 1140 (Ind. 1995) (harmless-error standard for evidentiary issues)
- Williams v. State, 714 N.E.2d 644 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (harmless exclusion where strong other evidence exists)
- Farris v. State, 818 N.E.2d 63 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (belated witnesses harmless where evidence remains strong)
- S.T. v. State, 764 N.E.2d 632 (Ind. 2002) (late-disclosed witnesses may be admissible if they add perspective)
- Bratcher v. State, 999 N.E.2d 864 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (probation conditions; scope and relation to treatment)
- Berry v. State, 725 N.E.2d 939 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (harm from evidentiary errors in bench trials reduced)