Jiosa v. State

• Decision Date: 02 October 2001
• Docket Number: No. 35S00-9910-CR-619.,35S00-9910-CR-619.
• Citation: 755 N.E.2d 605
• Parties: Bruce A. JIOSA, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

755 N.E.2d 605

Bruce A. JIOSA, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).

No. 35S00-9910-CR-619.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

October 2, 2001.

Christopher M. Goff, Huntington, IN, Attorney for Appellant. Karen M. Freeman-Wilson, Attorney General of Indiana, Barbara Gasper Hines, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

BOEHM, Justice.

Bruce Jiosa was convicted of molesting his five-year-old daughter. In this direct appeal he contends that the trial court erred when it excluded testimony as a sanction for violation of a pretrial witness separation order. Because we agree that this was reversible error we do not address the other issues Jiosa raises. We reverse and remand for a new trial.

Factual and Procedural Background

Jiosa's daughter had lived with her mother, Peggy Morgan, until March 1998, when child welfare workers, concerned that Morgan neglected the five-year-old girl, removed her from her mother's custody. Shortly thereafter, the daughter's foster mother noticed that the daughter positioned her dolls as if they were engaging in oral sex, and on one occasion the daughter herself simulated oral sex acts on a doll. Child welfare authorities were alerted and an investigation ensued. On April 1, 1998, Dr. Duane Hougendobler examined the girl and found physical symptoms that led him to conclude that something had been inserted into her vagina.

In August 1998, Jiosa was charged with child molestation and also as a habitual offender. Pursuant to Indiana Rule of Evidence 615, Jiosa filed a motion for the separation of the State's witnesses. The State in turn moved for the separation of all the witnesses. There is no written order granting these motions. The chronological case summary recites that the trial court granted the motions, ordering "that the witnesses in this cause shall remain outside the courtroom and from within the hearing of the evidence in this cause until after such witnesses have testified and have been excused from giving further testimony."

On the first day of trial, Dr. Hougendobler testified about the symptoms he had identified during his examination of the girl. Later that afternoon Jiosa's daughter, age seven at the time of trial, testified that Jiosa had had intercourse with her at Morgan's home. At the conclusion of the first day, a crowd that included Morgan and Jiosa's parents gathered outside the courtroom. Morgan, who had been excluded from the courtroom under the separation order, overheard Jiosa's father shout to Jiosa's mother, who was "very hard of hearing," details of some of the testimony given that day. It is not clear from the record exactly what testimony was conveyed to Morgan. Nor is it clear from which witness or witnesses that testimony might have originated. It is clear that Morgan then sought out the prosecutor and asked her if the father's account of the victim's testimony was accurate. Morgan next approached Jiosa's counsel and told him that she had observed her daughter engaging in behavior by herself that could have caused the symptoms observed by Dr. Hougendobler.

Jiosa attempted to introduce this evidence at trial the next day, but the trial court excluded any testimony from Morgan as having been tainted by a violation of the separation order. Subsequent to this exclusion, Jiosa requested permission to make an offer to prove in question and answer form. The court refused, and Jiosa moved for a mistrial. The court denied that motion as well. The jury convicted Jiosa on the child molestation count and found him to be a habitual offender.¹ The trial court sentenced Jiosa to an enhanced term of 50 years on the molestation charge and an additional 30 years on the habitual offender charge, to run consecutively.

Separation of Witnesses

Jiosa challenges the exclusion of Morgan's testimony on two grounds. First, he argues that Morgan did not violate the separation order merely by overhearing a discussion between two spectators. Second, he argues that even if the order was violated, the trial court abused its discretion by excluding Morgan's testimony as a remedy. We review the exclusion of evidence based on a violation of a separation order for abuse of discretion. Goolsby v. State, 517 N.E.2d 54, 61 (Ind. 1987). In the present case, the victim's symptoms were offered as proof that she had been abused. Morgan's testimony offered an alternative explanation for those symptoms. As such, if credited, it was extremely relevant.

Through no fault of her own, Morgan was in the courthouse hall, where she had every right to be, when she overheard Jiosa's father shouting details of the testimony given in court that day. She realized the victim's physical symptoms were relevant to the case and approached defense counsel with information that, if credited, would offer an alternative explanation for those symptoms. It is not obvious that this incident constituted a violation of the separation order, at least not by Morgan. It appears from the record that Morgan did not seek out information concerning the victim's testimony. Rather, she was innocently put in a position where it became clear to her that she had knowledge that was relevant to the outcome of the trial. However, there may well have been admonitions to witnesses that do not appear in the record, and the trial judge regarded this conduct as a violation.

Assuming there was a violation, the critical fact is that there is no suggestion Jiosa had anything to do with any violation of the order. Indiana Rule of Evidence 615 was adopted in 1994. It sets out the circumstances in which a separation order is to be given, but it does not address the remedy for a violation. Accordingly, pre-1994 cases are instructive. It has long been held an abuse of discretion to refuse to permit the testimony of a witness due to a violation of a separation of witnesses order if the party seeking to call the witness is without fault in the violation. Thomas v. State, 420 N.E.2d 1216, 1219 (Ind.1981) ("In the case at bar, there is no evidence that the State had colluded with the witness to violate the court order. Furthermore, it has been held to be prejudicial error `to refuse to permit such a witness to testify where the party calling the witness is not at fault for such violation.' ") (quoting Brannum v. State, 267 Ind. 51, 56, 366 N.E.2d 1180, 1184 (1977)). This is a longstanding doctrine. State ex rel. Steigerwald v. Thomas, 111 Ind. 515, 517, 13 N.E. 35, 35-36 (1887) (citations omitted), announced:

Where a party is without fault, and a witness disobeys an order directing a separation of witnesses, the party shall not be denied the right of having the witness testify, but the conduct of the witness may go to the jury upon the question of his credibility.... In another text-book a very thorough review of the authorities was made and it was said: "But it may now be considered as settled that the circumstance of a witness having remained in court in disobedience to an order of withdrawal, is not a ground for rejecting his evidence, and that it merely affords matter of observation."

More succinctly, as Judge Miller puts it, "if a party is denied the use of the witness's testimony, it is the party, rather than the witness, who is punished for the witness's violation." 13 Robert Lowell Miller, Jr., Indiana Practice, § 615.104, at 287 (2d ed.1995). See also Taylor v. State, 130 Ind. 66, 70, 29 N.E. 415, 417 (1891); Burk v. Andis, 98 Ind. 59, 64-65 (1884); Cordray v. State, 687 N.E.2d 219, 222-23 (Ind.Ct.App.1997); cf. Halbig v. State, 525 N.E.2d 288, 292 (Ind.1988)

; Brannum v. State, 267 Ind. 51, 56, 366 N.E.2d 1180, 1183 (1977); McCoy v. State, 241 Ind. 104, 119, 170 N.E.2d 43, 50 (1960); Heeter v. State, 661 N.E.2d 612, 615 (Ind.Ct.App. 1996); Alexander v. State, 600 N.E.2d 549, 553 (Ind.Ct.App.1992); Gamble v. State, 591 N.E.2d 142, 145 (Ind.Ct.App.1992); Hawn v. State, 565 N.E.2d 362, 366 (Ind. Ct.App.1991).

This common law presumption was not changed by the adoption of the Rules of Evidence. First, the new rule is modeled after the Federal Rules of Evidence.² Although there is some authority to the contrary, several federal circuits do not authorize the exclusion of testimony for a violation of a separation order unless there is consent, connivance, procurement, or knowledge of the party seeking the witness' testimony. United States v. Friedman, 854 F.2d 535, 568 (2d Cir. 1988); accord United States v. Hobbs, 31 F.3d 918, 922 (9th Cir.1994)

(citations omitted) ("[I]t is usually an abuse of discretion to disqualify such a witness `unless the defendant or his counsel have somehow cooperated in the violation of the order.'"); United States v. Jimenez, 780 F.2d 975, 980 (11th Cir.1986); United States v. Blasco, 702 F.2d 1315, 1327 (11th Cir.1983); United States v. Gibson, 675 F.2d 825, 836 (6th Cir.1982); United States v. Schaefer, 299 F.2d 625, 631-32 (7th Cir.1962). But see United States v. Magana, 127 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir.1997) (allowing exclusion of testimony for inadvertent violation by prosecutor); United States v. Buchanan, 787 F.2d 477, 485 (10th Cir.1986) (basing decision to admit testimony on prejudicial effect on the defendant). Given these precedents under the federal rule, the adoption of a rule modeled after the federal rule provides no basis to alter the common law presumption that it is an abuse of discretion to exclude witnesses for violations of a separation order when the party seeking to call the witness had no part in the violation of the order.

Nor does this presumption eliminate effective tools for enforcement of separation orders. Trial courts may issue contempt citations and permit evidence of witnesses' noncompliance to impeach their credibility. They may exclude witnesses if the party is at fault or the testimony does not directly affect the party's ability to present its case. See Rowan v. Owens, 752 F.2d 1186, 1191 (7th Cir.1984)

; Gibson, 675...