Hammon v. State
2004 Ind. App. LEXIS 1099, 809 N.E.2d 945, 2004 WL 1302820 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A victim's statements to a responding police officer during preliminary, on-scene questioning immediately following a domestic disturbance are not 'testimonial' under the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause. Therefore, they may be admitted into evidence even if the declarant is unavailable to testify and there was no prior opportunity for cross-examination.
Facts:
- On February 26, 2003, Officer Jason Mooney was dispatched to a residence for a report of a domestic disturbance.
- Upon arrival, Officer Mooney observed A.H., who appeared timid and frightened, and saw that the living room was in disarray with broken glass from a shattered heater on the floor.
- Hershel Hammon told Officer Mooney that he and A.H. had argued, but that the argument had not become physical.
- After separating Hammon from A.H., Officer Mooney questioned A.H. about what happened.
- A.H. told Officer Mooney that Hammon had physically attacked her by throwing her down into the broken glass and punching her twice in the chest.
- During the questioning, Hammon attempted to enter the room, causing A.H. to become quiet and appear afraid.
- A.H. also completed and signed a battery affidavit at the scene.
Procedural Posture:
- Hershel Hammon was charged with domestic battery.
- A bench trial was held in the Indiana trial court on May 9, 2003.
- At trial, the victim (A.H.) did not testify, but the trial court admitted her out-of-court statements through the testimony of Officer Mooney.
- The trial court found Hammon guilty of domestic battery, a Class A misdemeanor.
- Hammon, the appellant, appealed his conviction to the Indiana Court of Appeals, arguing the admission of the statements was an error.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the admission of a victim's out-of-court statements to a police officer, made at the crime scene shortly after a domestic battery incident, violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation when the victim does not testify at trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Barnes, Judge.
No, the admission of the victim's statements does not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. While the Supreme Court's decision in Crawford v. Washington bars the admission of 'testimonial' out-of-court statements without a prior opportunity for cross-examination, A.H.'s statements were not testimonial. The court reasoned that the common denominator of 'testimonial' statements is their official and formal quality, such as statements made during a police 'interrogation.' Here, the statements were made in response to informal, preliminary investigatory questions asked at the scene of a crime shortly after it occurred, with the purpose of determining what had happened, not for a formal examination to be used at trial. The court concluded that this type of on-scene questioning does not constitute a police 'interrogation' in the sense intended by Crawford. Furthermore, because the statement qualified as an 'excited utterance'—an unrehearsed statement made under stress without time for reflection—it is inherently non-testimonial as it was not made in contemplation of its use in a future trial.
Analysis:
This decision represents an early and significant interpretation of the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Crawford v. Washington. By distinguishing between formal 'police interrogation' and informal, on-scene questioning, the court created a crucial framework for applying the new 'testimonial' standard, particularly in domestic violence cases where victims are often unavailable to testify. This case establishes a precedent that preliminary, emergency-driven inquiries by police at a crime scene generate non-testimonial evidence, thereby allowing prosecutors to use victims' initial accounts without violating the Confrontation Clause. This reasoning helps define the boundaries of Crawford's application and influences how subsequent courts analyze the admissibility of statements made during the initial police response to a crime.
Unlock the full brief for Hammon v. State