Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A05-1605-CR-1152 | December 6, 2016 Page 1 of 7

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

John T. Wilson 

Anderson, Indiana 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General 

Jesse R. Drum

Deputy Attorney General 

Indianapolis, Indiana 

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Arthur Scott,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

December 6, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

48A05-1605-CR-1152

Appeal from the Madison Circuit 

Court

The Hon. Thomas Newman Jr., 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

48C03-1302-FC-457

Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A05-1605-CR-1152 | December 6, 2016 Page 2 of 7

Case Summary 

[1] On February 28, 2013, Appellee-Plaintiff the State of Indiana (“the State”) 

charged Appellant-Defendant Arthur Scott with Class C felony criminal 

confinement, Class D felony resisting law enforcement, Class A misdemeanor 

battery resulting in bodily injury, and Class B misdemeanor reckless driving. 

On April 8, 2013, Scott pled guilty as charged without the benefit of a plea 

agreement. On April 22, 2013, the trial court sentenced Scott to three years of

work release and two years of probation for an aggregate sentence of five years. 

[2] On February 10, 2015, an agreement to modify from work release to probation 

was filed. Scott was released from work release to probation by the court on 

February 12, 2015. On February 7, 2016, Scott was arrested for battery. On 

February 12, 2016, the State filed a notice of probation violation. On April 17, 

2016, Scott resisted law enforcement as officers were trying to execute an arrest 

warrant. An amended notice of probation violation was filed on April 20, 

2016. On May 2, 2016, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing, after which 

the trial court found that Scott violated the terms his probation, revoked his 

probation, and ordered him to serve his sentence with the Department of 

Correction (“DOC”). 

[3] Scott raises two issues, which we restate as follows: (1) whether the trial court 

abused its discretion when it admitted hearsay evidence at Scott’s probationrevocation hearing and (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion when it 

ordered Scott to serve his suspended sentence in the DOC. Concluding that the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A05-1605-CR-1152 | December 6, 2016 Page 3 of 7

trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted substantially 

trustworthy hearsay evidence at the probation revocation hearing and ordered 

Scott to serve his suspended sentence with the DOC after he violated the terms 

of his probation, we affirm. 

Statement of the Facts 

[4] After Scott pled guilty on April 8, 2013, he was sentenced to work release and 

probation. As a condition of his probation, among other things, Scott was not 

supposed to commit any new crimes. Scott started his probation on February 

12, 2015. 

[5] On February 7, 2016, Anderson Police Officer Andrew Brunett (“Officer 

Brunett”) responded to a dispatch for a battery. When Officer Brunett arrived, 

he observed Nikki Justice sitting on the curb. Justice appeared to be very upset 

and her left eye was bruised. As Officer Brunett spoke to Justice, he learned 

that Justice and Scott had been in an argument in his car when he bit her near 

her left eye. Justice thought that Scott bit her there “because it was already 

bruised and she believed that it was done in an effort to conceal any sort of bite 

marks around the bruising that was already there.” Tr. p. 7. Justice indicated 

that the bite was painful. Scott was subsequently located and arrested for 

battery. On February 12, 2016, the State filed a notice of probation violation. 

[6] On April 17, 2016, Anderson Police Officer Travis Thompson (“Officer 

Thompson”) responded to a dispatch for a warrant to arrest Scott. Officer 

Thompson was already familiar with Scott. When Officer Thompson located 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A05-1605-CR-1152 | December 6, 2016 Page 4 of 7

Scott, he was sitting in the passenger seat of a vehicle. Officer Thompson 

subsequently initiated a traffic stop and Scott exited the vehicle. Contrary to 

Officer Thompson’s orders to return to the vehicle, Scott fled on foot. Officer 

Thompson pursued Scott while ordering him to stop. Scott, however, 

continued to run, at which point Officer Thompson tased Scott in the leg. Even 

then, Scott tried to pull the probes from his leg and disregarded Officer 

Thompson’s orders to lay on his stomach. Due to Scott’s continuous efforts to 

resist, it took three officers to secure and handcuff Scott. The State 

subsequently charged Scott with resisting law enforcement. 

[7] On April 20, 2016, the State filed an amended notice of probation violation. 

The State alleged that Scott violated his probation by committing battery, 

resisting law enforcement, and failing to pay fees. Additionally, the State 

subpoenaed Justice to testify at the evidentiary hearing, but she failed to appear. 

At the evidentiary hearing on May 2, 2016, over Scott’s hearsay objection, the 

trial court admitted Officer Brunett’s testimony regarding his conversation with 

Justice. The trial court subsequently found that Scott had violated his 

probation by committing battery and resisting law enforcement, revoked his 

probation, and ordered Scott to serve his previously-suspended sentence in the 

DOC. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A05-1605-CR-1152 | December 6, 2016 Page 5 of 7

Discussion and Decision 

I. Admission of Evidence

[8] We review the trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence in a probation 

revocation hearing for an abuse of discretion. Robinson v. State, 955 N.E.2d 228, 

231 (Ind. Ct App. 2011). We will only reverse if the trial court’s decision was 

“clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it.” Id. 

[9] The Indiana Supreme Court has recognized that “persons facing revocation of 

their community-corrections placements are entitled to certain due process 

rights at their revocation hearings, including a right to confrontation.” Smith v. 

State, 971 N.E.2d 86, 89 (Ind. 2012). Revocation hearings, however, are not 

criminal prosecutions and therefore the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth 

Amendment and Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), do not apply. Id. 

Moreover, due to the fact that probation-revocation procedures are to be 

flexible, strict rules of evidence do not apply. Ind. Evidence Rule 101(d)(2). 

Consequently, hearsay is admissible at a revocation hearing if the evidence is 

substantially trustworthy. Smith, 971 N.E.2d at 90.

[10] Scott argues that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting Officer 

Brunett’s testimony regarding what Justice told him over his objection on the 

grounds of hearsay. In a criminal prosecution, such testimony would have been 

barred by the rules of evidence on the grounds that it constituted hearsay. 

However, probation-revocation hearings are more flexible and hearsay can be 

admitted if it is substantially trustworthy. Justice did not appear to testify 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A05-1605-CR-1152 | December 6, 2016 Page 6 of 7

despite efforts to subpoena her. Consequently, the trial court allowed Officer 

Brunett to testify about his conversation with Justice on the night in question. 

Officer Brunett was dispatched to the scene for a battery. When he arrived, 

Justice appeared visibly upset and Officer Burnett observed bruising around her 

left eye. Justice corroborated Officer Brunett’s observations when she informed 

him that Scott had battered her. Moreover, it was in Justice’s best interest to be 

truthful to Officer Brunett because it is illegal to falsely report a crime. Officer 

Brunett’s testimony was under oath and subject to cross-examination. There is 

no evidence to cast doubt upon the trustworthiness of his testimony.

II. Probation Revocation

[11] Scott also challenges the trial court’s order to serve his previously suspended 

sentence in the DOC. He argues that the trial court should have considered the 

evidence he presented of an alternative to incarceration. 

[12] “Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which 

a criminal defendant is entitled.” Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 

2007). Scott’s sentence was not an abuse of discretion. In addition to the 

crimes mentioned above, Scott committed a second crime while on probation. 

According to the evidence, Scott resisted law enforcement on April 17, 2016. It 

took three officers to secure and handcuff Scott. 

[13] The undisputed evidence shows that Scott has committed at least one, if not 

two, probation violations. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it 

ordered him to serve his previously-suspended sentence with the DOC. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A05-1605-CR-1152 | December 6, 2016 Page 7 of 7

[14] We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

Vaidik, C.J., and Brown, J., concur.