COA: Evidentiary issue not yet ripe for appeal

An Indiana man who wanted the jury to know about a trial court’s order tossing a CHINS petition has been told by the Court of Appeals of Indiana to come back after his case has been tried.

Richard Means II was charged with Level 5 felony battery resulting in bodily injury to a child who was less than 14 years of age after his girlfriend’s son, E.H., was found with bruises on both legs and a handprint on his buttocks. The Indiana Department of Child Services filed a petition alleging E.H. was a child in need of services.

However, after a hearing, the Hendricks Superior Court ruled the state had not proven by a preponderance of evidence that E.H. was a CHINS.

Because the criminal charge is based on the same injuries that led to the CHINS filing, Means wanted the court’s CHINS order to be presented at his trial. He argued the order shows someone else could be responsible for E.H.’s injuries.

The state countered that it would be offering different evidence at trial than what may have been presented at the CHINS hearing. In particular, the new evidence was based on the more thorough investigation by law enforcement into allegations that someone at E.H.’s day care had abused him.

The trial court granted the state’s motion in limine, concluding the CHINS order was not admissible at trial. Specifically, Judge Rhett Stuard held the CHINS order’s “finding that someone at the daycare likely battered [E.H.] [was] a legal conclusion that invade[d] the jury’s duty to determine the outcome of this case on the facts presented to them at a trial held in their presence.”

Means filed an interlocutory appeal, which the Court of Appeals dismissed in Richard A. Means II v. State of Indiana, 21A-CR-2570.

The appellate panel noted the denial of a motion in limine does not amount to an error. Rather, if the trial court errs, the error is in admitting the evidence at trial in violation of an evidentiary rule.

“Here, Means asks us to review the trial court’s preliminary determination regarding the admissibility of the CHINS order at Means’ upcoming trial. We conclude that this issue is simply not ripe for our review,” Judge Rudolph Pyle III wrote for the COA. “We will be in a superior position to decide this issue after a trial has been held and the trial court has made a final determination regarding the admissibility of the CHINS order.”