Court Opinion

ID: 9705051
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:55:30.180725+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:07:09.012418
License: Public Domain

MAY, Judge,
concurring in result with opinion.
I write separately because I am able to concur in result only.
The State failed to supplement the record to include the transcript of the pretrial “protected person” hearing. Without that transcript, or a trial court order containing findings and conclusions based on the evidence presented at that hearing, I would not “presume that a proper hearing was held within the statute’s ambit,” Op. at 13 n. 2, while also conducting an “analysis [of] whether this [statutory] exception applies.” Id. at 13. Rather, I would decline the State’s invitation to find the testimony admissible under Ind.Code § 35-37-4-6.
Nevertheless, I would affirm the judgment of the trial court by holding U.H.’s statement to Dannenbrink was admissible hearsay as an excited utterance. Ind. Evidence Rule 803(2) (“A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition” is not excluded by the hearsay rule.). At trial, U.H. testified he left his residence after Johnson punched and kicked him:
First, I ran to my friend’s house to see if he could do something and he told me to run to the policeman’s door and the *15police wasn’t there so I started running and I just turned corners because I thought [Johnson] was chasing me.... So I kept running and turning corners and I finally saw the parking lot with a church on it and I ran into it.
(Tr. at 15.) That is when U.H. encountered Dannenbrink. Dannenbrink testified when she first saw U.H., “he was crying and he was hurt. He was bloody.” {Id. at 25.) He had “fresh” blood on his shirt, and he still had blood coming from his nose and mouth. {Id. at 26.) Upon finding U.H., Dannenbrink asked him if he needed help, what had happened, and who hurt him. U.H.’s answer to Dannenbrink’s third question is the statement Johnson wished to bar from admission. Because U.H. was still under the stress of the excitement caused by the event, I would hold his statement was admissible as an excited utterance. Therefore, I concur in result.

ORDER

On January 3, 2008, the Court handed down its opinion in this appeal marked Memorandum Decision, Not for Publication. The Appellee, by counsel, has filed a Verified Motion for Publication of Memorandum Decision.
Having considered the matter, the Court FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
1.The Appellee’s Verified Motion to Publication of Memorandum Decision is GRANTED and this Court’s opinion heretofore handed down in this cause on January 3, 2008, marked Memorandum Decision, Not for Publication is now ORDERED PUBLISHED.
DARDEN, MAY, and CRONE, JJ„ concur.