hearsay rule in Indiana

2019This hearsay exception is "based upon the belief that a declarant's self-interest in seeking medical treatment renders it unlikely that the declarant would mislead the medical personnel person she wants to treat her." Miles v. State , 777 N.E.2d 767 , 771 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (citing McClain v. State , 675 N.E.2d 329 , 331 (Ind. 1996) ). [24] Such statements usually do not include statements that identify the perpetrator because the identity of the perpetrator is usually not necessary to provide effective medical care.

2017In determining whether a statement is admissible pursuant to this rule, courts engage in a two-part test: “1) is the declarant motivated to provide truthful information in order to promote diagnosis and treatment; and 2) is the content of the statement such than an expert in the field would reasonably rely on it in rendering diagnosis or treatment.” Id. [26] Garcia challenges only the first prong of the test and claims that E.T.’s statements to Merriman do not fall within this exception to the hearsay rule because “E.T.’s motive in making the statements was not to promote diagnosis and treatme

2015“If a statement involves hearsay within hearsay, also known as multiple hearsay or double hearsay, the statement may still be admitted if ‘each layer of hearsay1 qualifies ‘under an exception to the hearsay rule[.]’ ” Id. (quoting Palacios v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1026, 1030 (Ind.Ct.App.2010)); see also Ind. Evidence Rule 805 (“Hearsay included within hearsay is not excluded under the hearsay rule if each part of the combined statements conforms within an exception to the hearsay rule provided in these rules.”).

2015See Teag-ue, 978 N.E.2d at 1187 ; see also Ind. Evidence Rule 805 (“Hearsay included within hearsay is not excluded under the hearsay rule if each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule provided in these rules.”).

2019Id. [18] In support of its decision, the panel cited E.T., 808 N.E.2d at 645 , wherein the Indiana Supreme Court held that reports of SCAN’s (“SCAN”)1 home visits and supervised visitations did not fit into the business records exception to the hearsay rule.

2019The ‘regular course’ of business ‘must find its meaning in the inherent nature of the business in question and in the methods systematically employed for the conduct of the business as a business.’ Thus where a company does not rely upon certain records for the performance of its function those records are not business records within the meaning of the exception to the hearsay rule[.] It is not enough to qualify under the business records exception to show that the records are made regularly, rather, the court must also look to ‘the character of the records and their earmarks of reliability ac

2020See Camm, 908 N.E.2d at 233 (a witness’ unavailability at defendant’s second trial was grounded in his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination); and see Kellems v. State, 651 N.E.2d 326, 328 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (depositions from two witnesses who were declared unavailable after invoking their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination were admissible as evidence under the hearsay exception rule).

2015See Camm v. State, 908 N.E.2d 215, 233 (Ind.2009) (noting that the hearsay exception provided .by Ind. Evidence Rule 804(b)(3) was not available because none of the statements seeking to be admitted “constituted ‘an admission of a crime’ or ‘tended to subject [the declarant] to criminal liability”’), reh’g denied; Tolliver v. State, 922 N.E.2d 1272, 1280 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (noting that “as a general matter, to qualify under this hearsay exception,, the statement against interest must be incriminating on its face” (citing Jervis, 679 N.E.2d at 878 )), trans. denied. [23] This does not end our an

2020See Perry, 956 N.E.2d at 50 (concluding that the victim’s statements indicating she was grabbed around the neck and strangled were pertinent to the diagnosis and treatment of her injuries and admissible under Ind. Evidence Rule 803(4)).

2013“Indiana Evidence Rule 803(4) 15 sets forth the ‘medical diagnosis exception’ to the hearsay rule.” Perry v. State, 956 N.E.2d 41, 49 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).

2015See Camm v. State, 908 N.E.2d 215, 233 (Ind.2009) (noting that the hearsay exception provided .by Ind. Evidence Rule 804(b)(3) was not available because none of the statements seeking to be admitted “constituted ‘an admission of a crime’ or ‘tended to subject [the declarant] to criminal liability”’), reh’g denied; Tolliver v. State, 922 N.E.2d 1272, 1280 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (noting that “as a general matter, to qualify under this hearsay exception,, the statement against interest must be incriminating on its face” (citing Jervis, 679 N.E.2d at 878 )), trans. denied. [23] This does not end our an

2015See Camm v. State, 908 N.E.2d 215, 233 (Ind.2009) (noting that the hearsay exception provided by Ind. Evidence Rule 804(b)(3) was not available because none of the statements seeking to be admitted “constituted ‘an admission of a crime’ or ‘tended to subject [the declarant] to criminal liability ”), reh’g denied; Tolliver v. State, 922 N.E.2d 1272, 1280 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (noting that “as a general matter, to qualify under this hearsay exception, the statement against interest must be incriminating on its face” (citing Jervis, 679 N.E.2d at 878 )), trans. denied. [24] This does not end our anal

2024Although the State suggests the trial court admitted M.S.’s statements under the medical diagnosis exception to the hearsay rule, the trial court did not specify its rationale. [44] “The decision to admit or exclude evidence at trial is squarely within a trial court’s discretion.” VanPatten v. State, 986 N.E.2d 255, 260 (Ind. 2013).

2019This hearsay exception is “grounded in a belief that the declarant’s self-interest in obtaining the proper medical treatment makes such a statement reliable enough for admission at trial[.]” VanPatten v. State, 986 N.E.2d 255, 260 (Ind. 2013). “[M]ore simply put, Rule 803(4) reflects the idea that people are unlikely to lie to their doctors because doing so might jeopardize their opportunity to be made well.” Id. [23] When determining whether a statement was properly admitted pursuant to Rule 803(4), the following two-step analysis is required: (1) whether the declarant is motivated to provide

2019Stahl v. State, 686 N.E.2d 89, 92 (Ind. 1997). [16] The Indiana Supreme Court has explained as follows regarding this rule: The business records exception to the hearsay rule is based on the fact that the circumstances of preparation assure the accuracy and reliability of the entries.

2019Stahl v. State, 686 N.E.2d 89, 92 (Ind. 1997). [16] The Indiana Supreme Court has explained as follows regarding this rule: The business records exception to the hearsay rule is based on the fact that the circumstances of preparation assure the accuracy and reliability of the entries.

2019This hearsay exception is “based upon the belief that a declarant’s self- interest in seeking medical treatment renders it unlikely that the declarant would mislead the medical personnel person she wants to treat her.” Miles v. State, 777 N.E.2d 767, 771 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). [16] Statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment do not include statements that identify the perpetrator because the identity of the perpetrator is usually not necessary to provide effective medical care.

2019This hearsay exception is "based upon the belief that a declarant's self-interest in seeking medical treatment renders it unlikely that the declarant would mislead the medical personnel person she wants to treat her." Miles v. State , 777 N.E.2d 767 , 771 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (citing McClain v. State , 675 N.E.2d 329 , 331 (Ind. 1996) ). [24] Such statements usually do not include statements that identify the perpetrator because the identity of the perpetrator is usually not necessary to provide effective medical care.

2026Cf. Willey v. State, 712 N.E.2d 434, 443 (Ind. 1999) (“Motive and intent of the defendant are potentially relevant to the admissibility of prior ‘bad acts’ under Evidence Rule 404(b), but [they] do not constitute an exception to the hearsay rule.”).

2012Shane then points out that, in Hatcher, our supreme court observed, “[a]lthough the nature of the relationship may be relevant to show motive, we recently observed that motive does not constitute an exception to the hearsay rule.” Hatcher, 735 N.E.2d at 1161 (citing Willey v. State, 712 N.E.2d 434, 443 (Ind. 1999)).

2024Ind. Evidence Rule 803(8); see id. [12] The public records exception to the hearsay rule is grounded in the “assumption that public officials perform their duties properly without motive or interest other than to submit accurate and fair reports.” Fowler, 929 N.E.2d at 878 (quoting 13 Robert Lowell Miller, Jr., Indiana Practice: Indiana Evidence § 803.108 (3d ed.2007)).

2024Ind. Evidence Rule 803(8); see id. [12] The public records exception to the hearsay rule is grounded in the “assumption that public officials perform their duties properly without motive or interest other than to submit accurate and fair reports.” Fowler, 929 N.E.2d at 878 (quoting 13 Robert Lowell Miller, Jr., Indiana Practice: Indiana Evidence § 803.108 (3d ed.2007)).

2009See, e.g., Ealy v. State, 685 N.E.2d 1047, 1055 (Ind.1997) (holding that an autopsy report was properly admitted under the public records exception to the hearsay rule); Thompson v. State, 270 Ind. 442 , 386 N.E.2d 682, 684 (1979) (holding that an autopsy report was properly admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay rule although the doctor who prepared the report did not sponsor the report at trial and reasoning that the business records exception "does not mean that a sponsor of an exhibit must have personally made it, filed it, or have had first-hand knowledge of the tran

2009See, e.g., Ealy v. State, 685 N.E.2d 1047, 1055 (Ind.1997) (holding that an autopsy report was properly admitted under the public records exception to the hearsay rule); Thompson v. State, 270 Ind. 442 , 386 N.E.2d 682, 684 (1979) (holding that an autopsy report was properly admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay rule although the doctor who prepared the report did not sponsor the report at trial and reasoning that the business records exception "does not mean that a sponsor of an exhibit must have personally made it, filed it, or have had first-hand knowledge of the tran

2007See, e.g., Nash v. State, 754 N.E.2d 1021, 1025 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) (holding that the portion *580 of the medical records containing the victim's statements to the emergency room nurse that she had been raped by her husband were admissible under the records of regularly conducted business activity exception to the hearsay rule), trans. denied. [1] II.

2007See, e.g., Nash v. State, 754 N.E.2d 1021, 1025 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) (holding that the portion of the medical records containing the victim’s statements to the emergency room nurse that she had been raped by her husband were admissible under the records of regularly conducted business activity exception to the hearsay rule), trans. denied. 1 II.

2023“Hearsay is not admissible unless it fits within some exception to the hearsay rule.” Craig v. State, 630 N.E.2d 207, 209 (Ind. 1994) (citing Miller v. State, 575 N.E.2d 272 (Ind. 1991)); see also Evid.

1997"If the evidentiary purpose is to prove a fact asserted, and such purpose is not approved under Evid.R. 801(d), then the hearsay objection should be sustained, unless the [evidence] fits an exception to the hearsay rule.” Id. at 211 . .

2020Ind. Evidence Rule 801(d); cf. Jethroe v. State, 262 Ind. 505, 511 , 319 N.E.2d 133, 138 (1974) (stating “[a] conversation was introduced to show the truth of her assertion[;] [n]evertheless, it was admissible, because of the hearsay exception for admissions”).

2020Ind. Evidence Rule 801(d); cf. Jethroe v. State, 262 Ind. 505, 511 , 319 N.E.2d 133, 138 (1974) (stating “[a] conversation was introduced to show the truth of her assertion[;] [n]evertheless, it was admissible, because of the hearsay exception for admissions”).

2023Williams v. State, 930 N.E.2d 602 , 608 n.3 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Ind. Evidence Rule 801.

2012See Angleton v. State, 686 N.E.2d 803, 809 (Ind. 1997) (“[s]tatements not admitted to prove the truth of the matter do 5 not run afoul of the hearsay rule – they are not hearsay”). “[T]he Confrontation Clause ‘does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted.’” Williams v. State, 930 N.E.2d 602, 607 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 59 n.9 (2004)), trans. denied.