Anthony Edward Stewart v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2015 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as May 28 2015, 10:08 am
precedent or cited before any court except for the
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Mark A. Bates Gregory F. Zoeller
Office of the Lake County Public Attorney General of Indiana
Defender
Larry D. Allen
Appellate Division
Deputy Attorney General
Crown Point, Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Anthony Edward Stewart, May 28, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
45A04-1409-CR-422
v. Appeal from the Lake Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Clarence D. Murray,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Case No. 45G02-0908-FB-93
Crone, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] Anthony Edward Stewart appeals an order revoking his probation. He asserts
that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting police testimony
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A04-1409-CR-422 | May 28, 2015 Page 1 of 12
containing hearsay statements and identification evidence by an eyewitness and
in admitting recordings of phone calls that he placed from the jail. Finding that
the recorded phone calls were properly admitted, we conclude that any possible
error in admitting the hearsay statements and identification evidence was
harmless. Thus, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In January 2013, Stewart was convicted via plea agreement of class B felony
unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. The trial court
sentenced him to ten years, with four years suspended to probation. The
conditions of his probation included a prohibition against possessing a firearm
and a prohibition against committing a new criminal offense.
[3] On February 1, 2014, gunshots were fired at a vehicle carrying three people.
One of the occupants, Brian Boyd, was seriously injured and hospitalized. In
the course of his investigation, East Chicago Police Department Detective Isaac
Washington interviewed Dwayne Millender, a passenger in the vehicle at the
time of the shooting. During his time on the force, Detective Washington had
repeatedly been in contact with both Millender and Stewart, and he knew that
“Ant” was Stewart’s nickname and “Lakeside” was Millender’s nickname. Tr.
at 12 and 13. Millender told the detective that “Ant” was the shooter. Id. He
subsequently identified Stewart as the shooter from a photo array. On February
1, 2014, the State charged Stewart with attempted murder, aggravated battery,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A04-1409-CR-422 | May 28, 2015 Page 2 of 12
attempted battery by means of a deadly weapon, battery resulting in serious
bodily injury to an endangered adult, and a habitual offender count.
[4] On February 28, 2014, during the pendency of the attempted murder
proceedings, the State filed a petition to revoke Stewart’s probation, alleging
that he violated his probation conditions by possessing a firearm and
committing a new criminal offense. While he was in the Lake County jail
pending trial, he made several phone calls, which were recorded. At least three
of the calls were made to Millender. During these calls, Stewart informed
Millender that he would be receiving subpoenas and admonished Millender not
to show up for deposition or court proceedings. Millender agreed not to testify
against Stewart. During one of the calls, Stewart told Millender that he did not
intend for the shots to hit Millender but that they were meant to hit a person
named Buddy. In another recorded call, Stewart told an unidentified person
that he did not want Millender to surprise him by showing up in court.
[5] After several continuances, the revocation hearing was held on July 3, 2014.
Detective Washington testified concerning the State’s efforts to serve a
subpoena on Millender by driving the area two days before the hearing.1 He
described his familiarity with both Stewart and Millender, having coached
Stewart in basketball and spoken with him approximately fifty times and having
spoken with Millender approximately 100 times. Over Stewart’s hearsay
1
Although the record is unclear, the subpoena apparently was for Stewart’s upcoming attempted murder
trial rather than his probation revocation hearing.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A04-1409-CR-422 | May 28, 2015 Page 3 of 12
objections, the trial court admitted the detective’s testimony concerning
Millender’s statements identifying Stewart as the shooter both verbally and by
photograph.
[6] Also over Stewart’s objection, the trial court admitted four recorded phone calls
from the jail, with Detective Washington authenticating the voices and
nicknames of Stewart and Millender. The trial court found that the State had
proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Stewart violated the terms of
his probation. The court therefore issued an order revoking Stewart’s
probation. Stewart now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as
necessary.
Discussion and Decision
[7] Stewart maintains that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his
probation. Probation is a matter of grace left to the trial court’s sound
discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled. Prewitt v. State,
878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). The trial court determines the conditions of
probation and may revoke probation if the probationer violates those
conditions. Id. We review a trial court’s probation violation determination
using an abuse of discretion standard. Jackson v. State, 6 N.E.3d 1040, 1042
(Ind. Ct. App. 2014). An abuse of discretion occurs where the trial court’s
decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances
before it or where the trial court misinterprets the law. Id. In determining
whether a trial court has abused its discretion, we neither reweigh evidence nor
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A04-1409-CR-422 | May 28, 2015 Page 4 of 12
judge witness credibility. Ripps v. State, 968 N.E.2d 323, 326 (Ind. Ct. App.
2012). Instead, we consider conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to
the trial court’s ruling. Id. Because a probation revocation proceeding is civil in
nature, the State need only prove the alleged probation violation by a
preponderance of the evidence. Holmes v. State, 923 N.E.2d 479, 485 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2010). Proof of a single violation is sufficient to permit a trial court to
revoke probation. Beeler v. State, 959 N.E.2d 828, 830 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011),
trans. denied.
[8] Here, the revocation petition alleged that Stewart “engage[d] in criminal
activity as indicated by his arrest” for attempted murder, aggravated battery,
attempted battery by means of a deadly weapon, and battery resulting in serious
bodily injury to an endangered adult, all in conjunction with a February 1, 2014
shooting incident. Appellant’s App. at 40. At the time of the hearing, he was
awaiting trial on those charges.2
When a probationer is accused of committing a criminal offense, an
arrest alone does not warrant the revocation of probation. Likewise,
the mere filing of a criminal charge against a defendant does not
warrant the revocation of probation. Instead, when the State alleges
that the defendant violated probation by committing a new criminal
offense, the State is required to prove—by a preponderance of the
2
The evidence below and the arguments on appeal focus on Stewart’s alleged commission of a new criminal
offense. In granting the petition, the trial court referenced the “violations” in the plural, finding that they
were established by a preponderance of the evidence. Tr. at 44. The court made one brief reference to the
“bullets or shots,” but otherwise appeared to roll the firearm possession violation into the evidence
supporting Stewart’s commission of the new offense. Id. at 43. Because the new offense violation involved
the use of a firearm, we will address the firearm possession as it relates to that analysis.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A04-1409-CR-422 | May 28, 2015 Page 5 of 12
evidence—that the defendant committed the offense.
Jackson, 6 N.E.3d at 1042 (citations and quotation marks omitted). In the
context of probation revocation, the State need not establish that the defendant
was actually convicted of the new offense. Lightcap v. State, 863 N.E.2d 907, 911
(Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
[9] Stewart contends that he was denied his constitutional right of confrontation
and due process when the trial court admitted certain evidence. In the context
of probation revocation, the defendant’s liberty interest is conditional, and he is
therefore not entitled to the full panoply of due process rights afforded a
defendant in a criminal proceeding. Piper v. State, 770 N.E.2d 880, 882 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2002), trans. denied. However, because probation revocation implicates his
conditional liberty interest, he is entitled to some procedural due process,
including:
(a) written notice of the claimed violations of probation; (b) disclosure
to the probationer of evidence against him; (c) opportunity to be heard
in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (d) the
right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (unless the
hearing officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing
confrontation); (e) a neutral and detached hearing body; and (f) a
written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and
reasons for revoking probation.
Id.[10] In Reyes v. State, 868 N.E.2d 438, 441 (Ind. 2007), our supreme court adopted a
“substantial trustworthiness” test for determining the admissibility of evidence
during probation revocation proceedings. This means that in such hearings, the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A04-1409-CR-422 | May 28, 2015 Page 6 of 12
trial court may consider “any relevant evidence bearing some substantial indicia
of reliability,” including “reliable hearsay.” Monroe v. State, 899 N.E.2d 688,
691 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). In other words, concerning hearsay, a showing of
substantial trustworthiness is an implicit finding of good cause, therefore
obviating the need to otherwise show good cause for not producing the
declarant live. Reyes, 868 N.E.2d at 442.
[11] Stewart challenges the trial court’s admission of four recorded phone calls that
he made from the jail and Detective Washington’s testimony concerning those
calls. To the extent that he predicates this claim on what he characterizes as a
discovery violation by the State in failing to timely notify him of the recordings,
we note that
[t]he trial court has broad discretion in dealing with discovery
violations and may be reversed only for an abuse of that discretion
involving clear error and resulting prejudice. Generally, the proper
remedy for a discovery violation is a continuance. Exclusion of the
evidence is an extreme remedy and is to be used only if the State’s
actions were deliberate and the conduct prevented a fair trial.
Berry v. State, 715 N.E.2d 864, 866 (Ind. 1999) (citations omitted).
[12] Indiana Trial Rule 26, governing discovery, does not provide for mandatory
disclosures. Although the State has a constitutional duty to disclose evidence
favorable to the defendant, “there is no affirmative duty to provide inculpatory
evidence.” Booker v. State, 903 N.E.2d 502, 504-05 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans.
denied.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A04-1409-CR-422 | May 28, 2015 Page 7 of 12
[13] During direct examination, the State questioned Detective Washington
concerning the voices on four recorded phone calls placed from the jail. The
following colloquy ensued:
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Judge, at this juncture, I have to object. I
was never given an opportunity to review these phone calls. I’m just
hearing about this for the first time this morning. So I would like to
show my objection to any testimony relating to anything that was not
provided in discovery.
THE COURT: Was there a discovery order in the Petition to Revoke
Probation?
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Judge, I thought that was a standard course
of the matter, Judge. I presumed that that was supposed to be turned
over as a matter of course.
THE COURT: It wasn’t. Obviously we understand your objection
concerning short cause FA-7 [attempted murder]. And so your
objection—you are objecting to this being presented to the Court at
this time?
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Right, Judge.
THE COURT: Would you like an opportunity to hear the recordings
before we reconvene. We could recess for a while to give you that
opportunity.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Judge, obviously I would like that
opportunity. However, I think my objection still stands, that it puts
me in a distinct disadvantage having meaningful cross-examination
based upon that at this late notice.
THE COURT: Okay.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: While I would be glad to take that
opportunity, Judge, I don’t think that cures my objection because I do
not feel that I would have proper time to adequately cross examine this
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A04-1409-CR-422 | May 28, 2015 Page 8 of 12
witness or challenge those, ask that they not be admitted.
THE COURT: Okay. The record will show that this evidentiary
hearing was scheduled on June the 6th, and there was an opportunity
from that date to now, it’s been almost a month, to request any
information from the State. And so your objection to prohibit the
presentation of the evidence is denied. And, State, you may proceed.
[STATE]: Your Honor, may I address an issue that was stated for the
record?
THE COURT: If you would like to, yes.
[STATE]: The State did notify [defense counsel] that I stated I am
listening to some recordings. I can’t make out what they said. I will
have them. I was notified over the weekend of this specific language
in the dialogue. And I did call—we’ve been texting back and forth
letting [defense counsel] know, what the gist of what some of the
conversations are. This morning, I called and stated, I am here. I’m
trying to download these. He was busy. So part—it is true, I did not
turn them over; however, he had notice prior to right this moment.
THE COURT: All right.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Judge, I would acknowledge that as well.
But I did not know what they said to even factor it, so that’s what my
objection was.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much, everyone. Let’s go
forward.
Tr. at 15-17.
[14] First, the record indicates that Stewart never requested discovery from the State
in the probation revocation proceedings. Instead, he treated discovery as
mandatory as a matter of course. The trial court indicated, in ruling on the
recordings, that Stewart had never requested discovery despite having had a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A04-1409-CR-422 | May 28, 2015 Page 9 of 12
month since the most recently granted continuance to do so. The State notes
that even in a criminal trial setting, as opposed to the more flexible probation
revocation setting, the constitutional duty to disclose applies only to
exculpatory evidence. Booker, 903 N.E.2d at 504-05. The recordings clearly
implicate Stewart as the shooter and highlight his attempts to dissuade
Millender from testifying.
[15] Moreover, Stewart never specifically requested a continuance. Rather, defense
counsel reiterated that his objection was to the admission of the recordings and
testimony pertaining to them. When the trial court offered defense counsel a
recess to listen to the recordings, his responses were equivocal: “I would like
that opportunity. However ….” And, “While I would be glad to take that
opportunity …. I don’t think that cures my objection … [I] ask that they not be
admitted.” Tr. at 15-16. If he had wanted a continuance, that would have been
the perfect time to request it; yet he did not. As a result, he has waived the issue
for consideration on appeal. See Lindsey v. State, 877 N.E.2d 190, 196 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2007) (failure to request continuance where continuance is the appropriate
remedy constitutes waiver), trans. denied (2008).
[16] Finally, despite Stewart’s assertion of being unaware of the recordings until the
hearing, the prosecutor emphasized that she had notified defense counsel over
the weekend concerning the contents of the recordings and that the two had
texted back and forth about the gist of the conversations. The State also noted
that it had offered defense counsel an opportunity to listen to the recordings that
morning before the hearing. Defense counsel admitted as such, but reiterated
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A04-1409-CR-422 | May 28, 2015 Page 10 of 12
his objection to their admission. In short, Stewart did not avail himself of the
procedures available to cure any infirmities in the discovery process. Instead,
he sought the extreme remedy of exclusion yet failed to show that the State
deliberately withheld the recordings from him.
[17] Notwithstanding Stewart’s procedural failures, the recordings contained
inculpatory, not exculpatory, evidence. Detective Washington’s testimony was
crucial in laying a foundation for the recordings, as he was able to authenticate
the voices of both Millender and Stewart. See, e.g., Tr. at 19 (“Q. So you know
[Stewart’s] voice and can identify it? A. I know it, yes.”). The detective
testified that he had spoken to Millender over 100 times and that he had
coached Stewart in basketball and had spoken to him approximately fifty times.
As each recording was played, the detective identified the voices. He identified
the first three recordings as conversations between Stewart, a/k/a “Ant,” and
Millender, a/k/a “Lakeside.” Id. at 21-22. The recordings contained
instructions from Stewart to Millender, with Stewart informing Millender that
he would be receiving papers ordering him to come in for a deposition or for
testimony in court and advising him to ignore the papers and not show up. The
recordings also indicated Millender’s agreement not to testify against Stewart.
In one of the recordings, Stewart told Millender that the bullets were not
intended for him but were intended for another person in the vehicle. The
fourth recording was a conversation between Stewart and an unrecognized
individual wherein Stewart advised his listener that he did not want Millender
showing up and surprising him by coming to court.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A04-1409-CR-422 | May 28, 2015 Page 11 of 12
[18] The recordings, taken through the jail phone system, were subjected to voice
authentication by Detective Washington, who was extensively familiar with
both Stewart and Millender. We conclude that the recordings bore substantial
indicia of reliability. In these recorded conversations, Stewart incriminated
himself as to the violations of his probation conditions by admitting that he (1)
committed a new criminal offense and (2) used a firearm. 3
[19] In sum, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the recordings.
As for Millender’s hearsay statements and photo array identification of Stewart
as the shooter, any possible error in their admission was harmless as cumulative
of the contents of those recordings. The State met its burden of establishing
Stewart’s probation violations by a preponderance of the evidence. As such,
the trial court acted within its discretion in revoking his probation.
Accordingly, we affirm.
[20] Affirmed.
Brown, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
3
Because we find the recordings substantially trustworthy, we need not address Millender’s availability.
We note, however, that the recordings implicate Stewart’s role in procuring Millender’s unavailability by
means of intimidation. Indiana Rule of Evidence 804(b)(5) permits admission of hearsay “offered against a
party that has engaged in or encouraged wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure the unavailability
of the declarant as a witness for the purpose of preventing the declarant from attending or testifying.”
Essentially, Stewart invited the very circumstance about which he now complains: hearsay evidence
admitted in the absence of the declarant. Having played this role in procuring Millender’s unavailability, he
is subject to the “forfeiture by wrongdoing” hearsay exception found in Rule 804(b)(5). White v. State, 978
N.E.2d 475, 479 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied (2013).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A04-1409-CR-422 | May 28, 2015 Page 12 of 12