Hardiman v. State

• Decision Date: 14 April 2000
• Docket Number: No. 49S00-9901-CR-10.,49S00-9901-CR-10.
• Parties: Quentis HARDIMAN Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana Appellee (Plaintiff Below).
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

726 N.E.2d 1201

Quentis HARDIMAN Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana Appellee (Plaintiff Below).

No. 49S00-9901-CR-10.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

April 14, 2000.

Mark Small, Marion County Public Defender Agency, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorney for Appellant.

Jeffrey Modisett, Attorney General of Indiana, J.T. Whitehead, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for Appellee. SHEPARD, Chief Justice.

A jury found appellant Quentis Hardiman guilty of murder, a felony, Ind.Code § 35-42-1-1. The trial court sentenced him to sixty-five years in prison. On direct appeal, Hardiman raises the following issues:

1. Whether a detective's investigative report containing multiple hearsay was properly excluded;

2. Whether the identification an eyewitness made in court was tainted by an unduly suggestive pre-trial photo array;

3. Whether the State violated discovery orders by disclosing a fingerprint match only days before the trial began; and

4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.

Statement of the Facts

The evidence most favorable to the jury's verdict revealed that on July 13, 1997, several people held a barbecue at a local park and gathered later in the parking lot of an apartment complex in Indianapolis. Demetria Gillespie, her boyfriend Harvey Webber, and Quentis Hardiman were among those present.

At about midnight, Torrence Terrell and two females arrived at the parking lot in a Chevrolet Suburban. Terrell got out of his vehicle, but he left its headlights on and the radio playing at a high volume. Several people, including Hardiman, approached Terrell and asked him to turn off his lights and turn down the music. Terrell refused, and he and Hardiman had a verbal argument near the Chevrolet. Both Gillespie and Webber were seated directly adjacent to this scene. After several minutes of argument, Hardiman pulled out a handgun and shot Terrell multiple times at close range. Terrell died.

Detective Thomas Lehn arrived shortly after the incident and attempted to secure the crime scene. Some thirty minutes later, he took statements from the two women who had accompanied the deceased. While they had not witnessed the shooting, they informed the detective that they heard several people in the crowd say that Webber was the shooter. The detective mentioned these statements in his report, and the defense attempted to admit the report at trial.

While investigating the crime scene, the police obtained several fingerprints from Terrell's car. The State initially tried to match these prints to those of Hardiman, but was unsuccessful due to a problem with the computer system. One week before trial the State again requested a print comparison and found the two prints were a match. Alleging a discovery violation, Hardiman sought to suppress this evidence, but the trial court denied his motion.

I. Admissibility of Police Report

Hardiman first contends that the statements found within Lehn's police report properly fit within a hearsay exception and should have been admitted at trial. In contrast, the State claims that the police report contains multiple hearsay and that each instance of hearsay does not qualify under an exception.

The trial court excluded the report, finding that the sources of the information in it suggested a "lack of trustworthiness." (R. at 485.) The trial court's discretion to admit or exclude evidence is broad, and this Court will not reverse the trial court absent an abuse of that discretion. See Platt v. State, 589 N.E.2d 222 (Ind.1992)

. A trial court abuses its discretion when its evidentiary ruling is clearly against the logic, facts and circumstances presented. Id.

Hardiman is seeking to prove that Webber was, in fact, the shooter by introducing a written report that records statements by witnesses not present at trial that they heard unnamed members of a crowd say that it was so. This is a tall order. When faced with multiple hearsay, "each part of the combined statement" must conform with a hearsay exception. Ind. Evidence Rule 805. In attempting to introduce the police report, Hardiman must show that each assertion—the police report, the witness's statement, and the crowd's shouting—fits within an exception to the hearsay rule.

As a starting point, the police report itself must qualify under one of the hearsay exceptions. Rule 803(8) covers the admissibility of public records and reports. When offered by the accused in a criminal case, investigative reports by police personnel fall within this exception. Evid. R. 803(8)(a). Because Hardiman offered the report, the first hearsay problem is resolved favorably to him.

The statements of the two witnesses to the detective are more problematic. In his brief, Hardiman fails to recognize the fact that the statements attributed to the two women are hearsay. Instead, he moves on to the utterances of the crowd immediately after the shooting, saying they are "excited utterances." We need not address this third hearsay problem, for Hardiman's mission stalls on the admissibility of the women's statements.

Detective Lehn interviewed the two women, Valetta and Regina Scurlock. He recorded their statements individually, commencing about thirty minutes after his arrival on the scene. Roughly speaking, the Scurlock statements were given forty-five minutes after Terrell's shooting. While the women were emotionally shaken, they were neither crying nor agitated when the detective interviewed them. (R. at 458-59.)

While Hardiman has not suggested a reason the Scurlock statements might be admissible, we suspect the most promising hearsay exception would be an "excited utterance" under Rule 803(2). An excited utterance is a "statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event." Evid. R. 803(2).

The underlying rationale of the excited utterance exception is that such a declaration from one who has recently suffered an overpowering experience is likely to be truthful. Gye v. State, 441 N.E.2d 436 (Ind.1982). While the event and the utterance need not be absolutely contemporaneous, lapse of time is a factor to consider in determining admissibility. Holmes v. State, 480 N.E.2d 916 (Ind. 1985). Similarly, that the statements were made in response to inquiries is also a factor to be considered. Gye, 441 N.E.2d at 438. Whether given in response to a question or not, the statement must be unrehearsed and made while still under the stress of excitement from the startling event. Yamobi v. State, 672 N.E.2d 1344 (Ind.1996).

The heart of the inquiry is whether the declarants had the time for reflection and deliberation. The trial court could reasonably have concluded that they did. The women's statements were given well after the shooting, and the two were not directly connected to the shooting except as bystanders. Moreover, the statements were not spontaneous declarations; the women were waiting in line to give statements to the investigating officer of an apparent homicide. This collection of circumstances persuades us that the trial judge acted within the bounds of his discretion in excluding the statements.

II. A Tainted Identification?

Hardiman next argues it was error to let Gillespie identify him in court because her testimony was tainted by an impermissibly suggestive pre-trial photo array.¹ The State responds by saying the prior identification was not suggestive and that Gillespie had an independent basis for identifying Hardiman.

Roughly one month after Terrell was shot, police approached Gillespie concerning identification of the shooter, but she responded that she had seen nothing. She later justified this silence by asserting that she feared retribution for assisting the police. Not until November did she come forward with information regarding the murder, and she subsequently identified Hardiman. After she had selected Hardiman's photo, detective Spurgeon informed her that she had identified the man the police believed shot Terrell. Asserting that this was an impermissibly suggestive procedure, Hardiman moved in limine to suppress Gillespie's in-court identification. The trial court denied the motion.

It is certainly possible...