Husband gets new trial on domestic battery conviction

A man convicted of domestic battery and disorderly conduct successfully secured a new trial from the Indiana Court of Appeals after it found the admission of his wife’s hearsay statements were in error.

Following a night of drinking in 2019, husband and wife Zackery and Katherine Hurt took an Uber back to the Hendricks County residence where they were dog sitting. Meanwhile, Sgt. Anthony Goodpaster of the Hendricks County Sheriff’s Department responded to an incomplete 911 call at the same residence, where the couple’s Uber driver was still parked.

While responding to the call, Goodpaster heard a loud noise come from inside the residence where the Hurts were located and later discovered that both husband and wife were intoxicated and had bleeding injuries on their faces.

Goodpaster’s investigation at the home was recorded on his body camera, and Zackery told Goodpaster that Katherine had hit him, but that he didn’t want to press charges. Katherine gave Goodpaster several explanations for her injuries, but eventually stated Zackery had deliberately hit her face with his elbow.

Zackery was charged and convicted of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct. During a bench trial, the judge admitted over Zackery’s hearsay objections Goodpaster’s testimony that Katherine stated that Zackery hit her with his elbow and the body camera recording of Goodpaster’s interview with Katherine.

Hurt was sentenced to concurrent terms of 180 days with 172 days suspended to probation, which Zackery successfully appealed on contentions that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting Goodpaster’s testimony recounting Katherine’s hearsay statements.

“At trial, Katherine did not vouch for the accuracy of her statement to Sergeant Goodpaster. She was heavily intoxicated when she gave the statement and could not recall speaking to the officer. For these reasons, the admission of Katherine’s statement was not permissible under the recorded recollection exception,” Judge Paul D. Mathias wrote for the appellate court.

Additionally, the appellate court concluded that because Katherine was not under the stress of the event at the time she made her statement to Goodpaster, her statement was therefore not admissible as an excited utterance.

On a final note, the panel concluded that given her multiple explanations for how she suffered the injuries to her nose and mouth, Katherine had time to deliberate before she spoke to Goodpaster. The appellate court noted that although her ability to deliberate was hindered by her state of intoxication, the record established that she was still able to consider her responses to the officer’s questions.

Thus, the appellate court found that Katherine’s statement to Goodpaster was not admissible as a present sense impression.

“The State presented photographic evidence and testimony from Sergeant Goodpaster documenting Katherine’s injuries. But Katherine’s inadmissible hearsay statement was evidence admitted to prove that Hurt engaged in fighting or tumultuous conduct or that he struck her and caused the injuries to her face. Therefore, we agree with Hurt that the challenged evidence contributed to the guilty verdict and affected his substantial rights. Hurt does not claim that the remaining evidence is insufficient for a new trial and specifically requests a new trial in his prayer for relief,” the appellate court wrote.

The COA therefore reversed and remanded for a new trial in Zackery A. Hurt v. State of Indiana, 20A-CR-30.