Jones v. State

Decision Date29 October 2020
Docket NumberCourt of Appeals Case No. 20A-CR-202
Citation159 N.E.3d 55
Parties Quantavious JONES, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

Attorney for Appellant: Brian A. Karle, Ball Eggleston, PC, Lafayette, Indiana

Attorneys for Appellee: Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Attorney General of Indiana, Benjamin J. Shoptaw, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana

Weissmann, Judge.

[1] Quantavious Jones appeals his convictions for two counts of Level 3 Felony Aggravated Battery Causing Serious Permanent Disfigurement, one count of Level 5 Felony Kidnapping With Bodily Injury, one count of Level 2 Felony Kidnapping For Ransom, and one count of Level 2 Felony Criminal Confinement With Intent to Obtain Ransom.1 He argues that the convictions were based on improperly admitted evidence and that they violate the continuous crime doctrine. The State concedes that the criminal confinement and Level 5 kidnapping convictions must be vacated. We agree, and remand with instructions to vacate these convictions and resentence Jones accordingly. In all other respects, we affirm.

Facts

[2] On October 23, 2018, Quantavious Jones asked A.C., with whom he was in a relationship, if he could have a package delivered to her residence the next day. She agreed. On October 24, Jones called A.C. to check on the package, but she said it had not been delivered. He picked her up to investigate. They found the UPS delivery man, who confirmed that he had delivered the package, but said that he had not seen A.C.

[3] Jones then called Irving Madden. Jones told Madden that A.C. had lost his package, and that he and A.C. were coming over to Madden's house. A.C. became suspicious on the ride over. She attempted to exit the moving vehicle, but Jones grabbed her and kept her in the car. When they arrived at Madden's house, A.C. refused to get out of the car. Madden pulled her from the vehicle and dragged her into his house.

[4] Inside, Madden took A.C. to the basement and Jones handcuffed her to a pole or a pipe. A.C. escaped the handcuffs and tried to grab a phone, but Jones took the phone and choked her. He again handcuffed her to the pole. Then he moved her and handcuffed her to a chair in the basement's kitchen.

[5] Jones began questioning A.C. about the package. During the questioning, Madden threw scalding hot water on her from behind. A.C. would later describe the pain of being burned with hot water as "worse than ten." Tr. Vol. II p. 208. A.C. fell onto the floor, and Madden began beating her. Jones pulled Madden away from A.C., who then went into the bathroom where she was ordered to remove her clothes. She was alone for a moment before Madden opened the door and threw more hot water on her naked body. Madden then made A.C. get in the shower, turned on the hot water, and continued hitting her.

[6] At some point, the three returned to the bar area. Madden asked if they should kill A.C., but Jones said they should let her go. Madden found clothes for A.C. and left to get gas. Jones began calling A.C.'s family and friends, asking about the package and demanding $3,000 for A.C.'s release.

[7] When Madden returned, the three got in the car together. A.C. asked to be released on the east side of Indianapolis, where her family lives. Jones drove east but let A.C. out in an unknown neighborhood. A.C. knocked on the door of one of the houses and the woman that answered let A.C. use her phone.

[8] A.C.'s family picked her up and took her to the local hospital. There, she spoke with a nurse and a detective about what happened. She was later transferred to Eskenazi Hospital. She was put in a shock room, which is an area reserved for "life-threatening things." Tr. Vol. III p. 112. She was treated for abrasions on her face

and severe burns on her arms, chest, back, and legs.

[9] Janet Jackson worked with A.C. at Eskenazi as a forensic nurse examiner. Nurse Jackson was trained in caring for victims of trauma, including how to collect evidence. She was instructed to ask patients what happened to them "in order to figure out the appropriate treatment." Id. at 93. Nurse Jackson interviewed A.C. several hours after the incident. During this interview, A.C. was "shaking," "shivering," and "grimacing" from the pain. Id. at 95-96. A.C. was also "scared" that Jones and Madden were "going to come and find her." Id. at 97.

[10] Based on the foregoing chain of events, Jones and Madden were both arrested. On October 29, 2018, the State charged Jones with Level 2 felony robbery resulting in serious bodily injury, Level 3 felony criminal confinement while armed with a deadly weapon, three counts of Level 3 felony aggravated battery, Level 5 felony kidnapping with bodily injury, Level 5 felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury, and Level 6 felony strangulation. Later, the State added one count of Level 2 felony kidnapping for ransom and one count of Level 2 felony criminal confinement with intent to obtain ransom.

[11] Jones and Madden were co-defendants at a jury trial that started on December 8, 2019. Nurse Jackson testified extensively as to her interview with A.C., recounting A.C.'s description of events from the day before the incident through A.C.'s arrival at Eskenazi. This testimony included an allegation that Jones's missing package contained heroin. Tr. Vol. III p. 106-107. Jones objected to the nurse' testimony on hearsay grounds. The trial court admitted the testimony under two hearsay exceptions: that the statements were excited utterances and that they were made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment.

[12] On December 11, 2019, Jones was convicted of two counts of Level 3 felony aggravated battery, Level 2 felony kidnapping, Level 2 criminal confinement, and Level 5 felony kidnapping. He was found not guilty of Level 3 felony criminal confinement and Level 5 felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury. The State dismissed the other charges before trial. On January 6, 2020, the trial court sentenced Jones to ten years for each aggravated battery count, to run consecutively to each other. The trial court also sentenced him to twenty years for each Level 2 felony and four years for the kidnapping conviction, to be served concurrently with each other and consecutively with the battery convictions. Jones' aggregate term of imprisonment is forty years. Jones now appeals.

Discussion and Decision
I. Hearsay

[13] Jones argues that Nurse Jackson's testimony regarding her interview with A.C. was inadmissible hearsay, and that the admission of this testimony prejudiced Jones. The trial court's decision to admit evidence is discretionary and will be reversed only for an abuse of that discretion. Lewis v. State , 34 N.E.3d 240, 247 (Ind. 2015).

[14] Hearsay—an out-of-court statement admitted for the truth of the matter asserted—is generally inadmissible unless it falls under an exception. Ind. Evid. R. 801(c), 802. The State defended admission of the testimony, arguing that A.C.'s statements were excited utterances and that they were made for medical diagnosis or treatment. Tr. Vol. III p. 101, 121. Jones disagreed on both counts.

[15] Jones argues that A.C.'s statements to Nurse Jackson were too attenuated from the stressful event to come in under the excited utterance exception. An excited utterance is a "statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused." Ind. Evid. R. 803(2). There are three elements that must be met for hearsay to be admitted under the excited utterance exception: "(1) a ‘startling event or condition’ has occurred; (2) the declarant made a statement while ‘under the stress or excitement caused by the event or condition;’ (3) the statement was ‘related to the event or condition.’ " Ramsey v. State , 122 N.E.3d 1023, 1032 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). Excited utterances are thought to be more trustworthy because "the declarant was incapable of thoughtful reflection." Yamobi v. State , 672 N.E.2d 1344, 1346 (Ind. 1996).

[16] The passage of time reduces the likelihood that an utterance is spontaneous. Chambless v. State , 119 N.E.3d 182 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). However, "continuing trauma" can "render[ ] the declarant more reliable." Jenkins v. State , 725 N.E.2d 66, 69 (Ind. 2000). For example, our Supreme Court held in Yamobi that it was reasonable to conclude that a shooting victim's statements were reliable despite being made up to an hour after the shooting, because he "lay on his back bleeding and in pain" during that time and was perhaps incapable of reflection and deliberation. 672 N.E.2d at 1347.

[17] Jones argues that A.C.'s statements did not satisfy the second element because several hours passed between A.C.'s ordeal and her interview with Nurse Jackson. He suggests that the time that passed and the number of people A.C. spoke with allowed her story to become rehearsed.

[18] However, there is substantial evidence that A.C. suffered "continuing trauma" between the time of the attack and the time Nurse Jackson interviewed her. A.C. testified that the pain she experienced was "worse than ten." Tr. Vol. II p. 208. The woman who helped A.C. call for help testified that A.C. was scared, that "she was crying, her face was busted," and that "her skin was a bubble." Tr. Vol. III p. 26-28. One of the police officers who spoke with A.C. at Eskenazi Hospital testified that A.C.'s injuries were "some of the worst injuries I've seen next to death." Id. at 85. Nurse Jackson testified that when she spoke with A.C. hours after the incident, A.C. was still "shaking," "shivering," and "grimacing" from the pain. Id. at 95-96.

[19] Given A.C.'s medical condition and her intense pain, it was not against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial court to find that A.C. was still under the stress of the event when she spoke with Nurse Jackson, even though it was hours later. Under these circumstances, the trial court did...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Kerner v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • October 22, 2021
    ...independent violation of the statute is clear, "we follow the legislature's guidance and our analysis is complete." Jones v. State , 159 N.E.3d 55, 63 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (quoting Powell , 151 N.E.3d at 264 ), trans. denied. Here, because the statutes defining attempted robbery do not cont......
  • Phillips v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • August 12, 2021
    ...with our pre- Wadle decisions, despite the seismic shift in substantive double jeopardy analysis that Wadle incited. Jones v. State , 159 N.E.3d 55, 62 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (citing Wadle , 151 N.E.3d at 244 ), trans. denied ; see, e.g. , Richardson , 856 N.E.2d at 1230 (finding convictions ......
  • Madden v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • January 12, 2021
    ...to create one unified framework for substantive double jeopardy claims – including the continuous crime doctrine." Jones v. State , 159 N.E.3d 55, 61 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), trans. pending ; see also Hill , 157 N.E.3d at 1229. We agree. Therefore, we evaluate Madden's claims under the framewo......
  • Woodcock v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • January 28, 2021
    ...suit, holding, "These new tests incorporate principles of statutory interpretation and common law, supplanting both." 159 N.E.3d 55, 62 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), trans. pending; see also Diaz v. State , 158 N.E.3d 363, 368 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) ("We reiterate that Wadle did away with the ‘old la......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT