Zackery A. Hurt v. State of Indiana
August 21, 2020, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CR-30 (2020)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Out-of-court statements are inadmissible hearsay unless they fall under a recognized exception, and for statements to qualify as an excited utterance or present sense impression, they must be made under the stress of a startling event without time for reflection, or during or immediately after perceiving the event.
Facts:
- On the night of March 30, 2019, Zackery Hurt and his wife, Katherine Hurt, returned to Katherine’s aunt’s home, where they were dog sitting, in an Uber; both were intoxicated.
- Hendricks County Sheriff’s Department Sergeant Anthony Goodpaster was dispatched to the home in response to an incomplete 911 call.
- Sergeant Goodpaster heard a loud noise from inside the home, and when he knocked, Zackery opened the front door.
- Sergeant Goodpaster observed Zackery had slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, smelled of alcohol, and had a scratch on his face and a cut on his lip.
- Katherine came to the door, visibly intoxicated (with a subsequent blood alcohol content of .30), displaying a bloody nose and a cut on her lip, and a dog gate in the hallway appeared knocked down with blood on it.
- Sergeant Goodpaster interviewed Zackery, who eventually stated he and Katherine had argued and she had hit him.
- Sergeant Goodpaster interviewed Katherine, who initially offered several explanations for her injuries, including falling and being accidentally elbowed, before finally stating Zackery deliberately hit her face with his elbow.
- Katherine later testified at trial that due to her extreme intoxication, she could not recall how she received her injuries or remember speaking to Sergeant Goodpaster.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Indiana charged Zackery Hurt with Class A misdemeanor domestic battery and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct in Hendricks Superior Court.
- Hurt's bench trial was held in Hendricks Superior Court, where the trial court found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to concurrent terms.
- Hurt appealed his convictions to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the victim's hearsay statements into evidence.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion by admitting Katherine Hurt's out-of-court statements to Sergeant Goodpaster, which indicated Zackery Hurt hit her, under the recorded recollection, excited utterance, or present sense impression hearsay exceptions?
Opinions:
Majority - Mathias, Judge
Yes, the trial court abused its discretion by admitting Katherine Hurt's hearsay statements because they did not qualify under the recorded recollection, excited utterance, or present sense impression exceptions. The court first found that the statements did not meet the recorded recollection exception (Ind. Evidence Rule 803(5)) because Katherine, being heavily intoxicated, could not vouch for their accuracy nor recall making them, which is a foundational requirement. Next, the court addressed the excited utterance exception (Ind. Evidence Rule 803(2)), acknowledging a startling event but concluding Katherine was not under its stress. At least fifteen minutes elapsed between the 911 call and Katherine's statements, which were made in response to Sergeant Goodpaster's questioning, thus increasing the likelihood they were not made under the stress of the event. The body camera footage showed Katherine 'deliberating—albeit drunkenly—about how to respond to repeated questioning' and offering multiple explanations, indicating she was not 'incapable of thoughtful reflection' as required by the exception. Finally, the court determined the statements did not qualify as a present sense impression (Ind. Evidence Rule 803(1)) because they were not made 'while or immediately after' she perceived the event. The fifteen-minute lapse and her multiple, deliberated explanations demonstrated that she had 'ample time for a declarant to deliberate and possibly fabricate a statement.' Therefore, Katherine’s statements were inadmissible hearsay. The court concluded the error was not harmless because Katherine's inadmissible statements were crucial evidence admitted to prove Zackery engaged in fighting or tumultuous conduct or that he struck her, affecting his substantial rights.
Concurring - Bradford, C.J.
Chief Judge Bradford concurred with the majority opinion.
Concurring - Najam, J.
Judge Najam concurred with the majority opinion.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strict interpretation and application of hearsay exceptions under Indiana Evidence Rule 803, particularly for excited utterances and present sense impressions. It clarifies that a declarant's severe intoxication, while impacting coherence, does not automatically render them incapable of thoughtful reflection or deliberation for the purpose of these exceptions. The decision highlights that statements made in response to questioning, after a significant time lapse, or involving multiple inconsistent explanations are unlikely to satisfy the reliability requirements of these exceptions. This ruling provides important guidance for trial courts in admitting or excluding out-of-court statements, especially in domestic battery cases where victims may be intoxicated or reluctant to implicate the accused.
