Christopher R. Hall v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Feb 17 2015, 9:59 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as
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
David M. Payne Gregory F. Zoeller
Ryan & Payne Attorney General of Indiana
Marion, Indiana
J.T. Whitehead
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Christopher R. Hall February 17, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
27A05-1406-CR-267
v. Appeal from the Grant Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Dana J. Kenworthy,
Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff
The Honorable Brian McLane,
Judge Pro Tempore
Case No. 27D02-1310-FD-449
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1406-CR-267 | February 17, 2015 Page 1 of 11
[1] Christopher R. Hall was convicted of domestic battery, strangulation, and
invasion of privacy. On appeal, Hall argues that the trial court erred by
admitting two pieces of evidence at his trial. We find no error in the admission
of the challenged evidence, yet we note that any error would have been
harmless in light of the substantial evidence of Hall’s guilt. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Hall met and married his wife, Erin, in 2011. Their relationship was
tumultuous; they often fought over Erin’s employment at a local strip club.
Hall was controlling and discouraged Erin from seeing her family. Tr. p. 113-
14. During her marriage to Hall, Erin “d[idn’t] really feel like [she] had [a
life].” Id. at 116.
[3] In October 2013 Erin “went and got divorce papers.” Id. When Hall learned
what Erin had done, he “blew up,” began screaming and ripping up the papers,
and threatened to kill her. Id. at 116-17. Erin filed a police report and obtained
a no-contact order against Hall, but she and Hall later reconciled. Id. at 118.
[4] Two months later, Erin returned home one day to find an angry Hall waiting
for her. Hall called her “a crappy mom” and accused her of “screwing some
guys.” Id. at 119. Erin tried to ignore Hall, but he only became angrier. He
threw an ashtray and a box of crackers at her, calling her a “f***ing whore,” a
“f****ing liar,” and a “f****ing cheater.” Id. at 119-20. He also hit her in the
face and head and kicked her. Id. at 120, 124-25. At one point, he pinned Erin
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1406-CR-267 | February 17, 2015 Page 2 of 11
down and held her neck in “a choke[-]hold type thing,” and had “his hand over
[her] mouth and nose . . . .” Id. at 123. Hall repeatedly told Erin, “if you want
to act like a whore, I’ll treat you like one.” Id.
[5] Erin called her friend Sasha for help. Id. at 121. Hall began hitting Erin
repeatedly and trying to take her phone. Id. When he got her phone, Hall
ended the call and stomped on the phone, breaking it. Id. at 122. Hall and
Erin’s children witnessed the dispute, and Hall hit Erin while she was holding
their one-year-old daughter. Id. at 120, 125. Hall eventually released Erin and
left the home. Id. at 124.
[6] During Erin’s call to Sasha, Sasha overheard Hall screaming and calling Erin
names. Sasha asked her boyfriend David to go pick Erin up. When David
arrived at the house a few minutes later, Erin answered the door. Id. at 77. Her
“eyes [were] real red where she’d been crying, her face was real red, her neck
was real red, [and] her hair was all messed up.” Id. One of the children told
David that “her dad had her mom down choking her, and told her to go
downstairs so she wouldn’t see it . . . .” Id. at 79. David called the police.
[7] Police arrived a short time later. They interviewed Erin and photographed her
injuries. One of the children reported that “Daddy hit Mommy again.” Id. at
279. An officer observed Erin hunched over and holding her midsection. Id. at
282-83. He also observed injuries to her neck, cheek, and ribs. Id. at 283.
[8] Police located Hall and arrested him. The State charged Hall with Class D
felony intimidation, Class D felony domestic battery in the presence of a child,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1406-CR-267 | February 17, 2015 Page 3 of 11
Class D felony strangulation, Class A misdemeanor interference with reporting
of a crime, Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended, and Class A
misdemeanor invasion of privacy. Appellant’s App. p. 28-30 (charging
informations). Hall filed a motion for a speedy trial. See id. at 66-67.
[9] Hall’s jury trial began in April 2014. The State sought to introduce a recording
of a jail telephone call between Hall and his mother and grandfather. Defense
counsel objected and argued that the recording lacked probative value. The
State responded that it was extremely probative because in the recording, Hall
discussed the dispute, denied the charges against him, and threatened suicide.
Tr. p. 203. Defense counsel also objected on the grounds that he had not
received the recording until the day before trial.1 Id. at 189-91. The State
responded that it was “common to turn over jail calls days before trial because
it is one of the things we look at last when we’re putting together a case.” Id. at
188. Defense counsel then requested that the court exclude certain portions of
the recording—specific statements made by Hall’s mother and grandfather—
and the court did so.2 Id. at 192-95, 205-09. Defense counsel conceded that
Hall’s statements were admissible as statements of a party opponent. Id. at 198,
204.
1
The trial court’s only response to this argument appears to be its statement that “I do find, and again I know
there was late notice on this . . . .” Tr. p. 205.
2
Counsel also asked that the recording not be played in full; the end of the recording contained inadmissible
hearsay statements made by one of the children. The trial court granted this request as well. See Tr. p. 189,
199.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1406-CR-267 | February 17, 2015 Page 4 of 11
[10] In addition to redacting portions of the recording, the trial court admonished
the jury before the recording was played:
The statements, opinions, questions, and conduct of the other
individuals participating in the telephone call are hearsay and are
being admitted for a limited purpose. They are being admitted to
provide context for any statements made by the defendant. Those
statements, opinions, questions, or conduct of the other participants in
the telephone call may not be considered as substantive evidence to
establish any fact expressed by them. Just as with other forms of
evidence introduced during the trial, the evidence on the recording of
the call must conform to the rules of evidence. Because of that, there
may be times when you notice the effects of the editing process when
the recording is played in court. You are not to consider any such
technical imperfections or any of the editing process. The only
evidence actually presented to you, mainly Mr. Hall’s statements
during the phone call, should be considered.
Id. at 340-41. During the call, Hall discussed the dispute, blamed Erin, and
claimed that Erin injured him. See State’s Ex. 11. He also threatened to
commit suicide. Id. Hall’s mother and grandfather suggested that Hall battered
Erin, but Hall repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. Id.
[11] The State also called Linda Wilk, director of Hands of Hope, a domestic-
violence program. Tr. p. 218. Wilk testified that she ran domestic-violence,
sexual-violence, and stalking programs, as well as a domestic-violence shelter,
and had more than twenty years of experience working in this field. Id. at 218-
19. Wilk provided a chart illustrating the “escalation of violence”:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1406-CR-267 | February 17, 2015 Page 5 of 11
State’s Ex. 7. Wilk testified that the chart would aid the jury in understanding
her testimony about how domestic violence progresses and why a victim might
not end a violent relationship. Tr. p. 225-26. The State moved to admit the
chart for illustrative purposes. Id. at 227. Defense counsel objected, arguing
that the chart included severe offenses not implicated in this case. Id. In
response, the State argued that Wilk was
not here [to talk] about this case specifically, she’s here to educate the
jury on what domestic violence is, and the escalation of violence is
closely connected to what happens in domestic violence. She in no
way knows any facts about this case, and if he wants to ask her about,
you know, “does it always end in death?” “No,” that’s fine, but I think
this is just used as a tool for her to educate the jury on what happens
generally.
Id. at 227-28. Defense counsel then objected again based on the fact that Wilk
did not know Erin. Id. at 228. The State reiterated that Wilk had only been
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1406-CR-267 | February 17, 2015 Page 6 of 11
called to educate the jury about domestic violence and not to opine about Hall’s
case. Id. at 231. The trial court overruled defense counsel’s objections. Id.
Wilk proceeded to discuss the chart and the cyclical nature of domestic violence
over defense counsel’s continuing objection. During her testimony, Wilk stated
that she was “not talking about this case” and “honestly [did] not know
anything about this case.” Id. at 237.
[12] At the close of the State’s case, Hall testified in his own defense and claimed
that Erin was the aggressor. See id. at 415-18. To support this theory, defense
counsel utilized Wilk’s escalation-of-violence chart, asking Hall’s mother to
note any behaviors on the chart that Erin had engaged in. Id. at 362-66.
[13] The jury found Hall guilty of domestic battery, strangulation, and invasion of
privacy. The trial court sentenced Hall to an aggregate four-year term.
[14] Hall now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[15] Hall argues that the trial court erred by admitting the recording of the telephone
call he made from jail to his mother and grandfather as well as the escalation-
of-violence chart.
[16] We review a trial court’s decision regarding the admission of evidence for an
abuse of discretion. Herron v. State, 10 N.E.3d 552, 556 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014)
(citation omitted). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s ruling is
clearly against the logic, facts, and circumstances presented. Id. We do not
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1406-CR-267 | February 17, 2015 Page 7 of 11
reweigh the evidence, and we consider conflicting evidence most favorable to
the trial court’s ruling. Id.
[17] Hall first challenges the admission of his recorded conversation with his mother
and grandfather. He argues that it should not have been admitted because it
lacked probative value and was not provided to defense counsel in a timely
fashion. We disagree.
[18] The recording had probative value. In the recording, Hall discussed the
dispute, blamed Erin, and claimed that Erin injured him. He also threatened to
commit suicide. Hall’s mother’s and grandfather’s statements provided the
necessary context for Hall’s statements. See Evans v. State, 643 N.E.2d 877,
882 (Ind. 2006) (the purpose of the doctrine of completeness is “to
provide context for otherwise isolated comments when fairness requires
it.”). As for the timeliness issue, Hall sought to exclude the recording at trial,
but he did not request a continuance. “[A]s a general proposition, the proper
remedy for a discovery violation is a continuance.” Warren v. State, 725 N.E.2d
828, 832 (Ind. 2000). “Failure to alternatively request a continuance upon
moving to exclude evidence, where a continuance may be an appropriate
remedy, constitutes a waiver of any alleged error pertaining to noncompliance
with the court’s discovery order.” Id. Here, Hall moved to exclude the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1406-CR-267 | February 17, 2015 Page 8 of 11
recording, but he did not request a continuance.3 Consequently, this issue is
waived. See id.
[19] Waiver notwithstanding, Hall succeeded in excluding certain portions of the
recording. And before the rest of the recording was played, the trial court
admonished the jury as follows:
The statements, opinions, questions, and conduct of the other
individuals participating in the telephone call are hearsay and are
being admitted for a limited purpose. They are being admitted to
provide context for any statements made by the defendant. Those
statements, opinions, questions, or conduct of the other participants in
the telephone call may not be considered as substantive evidence to
establish any fact expressed by them. Just as with other forms of
evidence introduced during the trial, the evidence on the recording of
the call must conform to the rules of evidence. Because of that, there
may be times when you notice the effects of the editing process when
the recording is played in court. You are not to consider any such
technical imperfections or any of the editing process. The only
evidence actually presented to you, mainly Mr. Hall’s statements
during the phone call, should be considered.
[20] Tr. p. 340-41. Although Hall’s mother and grandfather suggested that Hall
battered Erin during the call, Hall repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. See
State’s Ex. 11. We conclude that the trial court’s admonishment—which
directed the jury to focus on Hall’s statements—cured any possible prejudice
3
According to Hall, “the scheduled trial date . . . was the 70th day after filing for the [] speedy trial.”
Appellant’s Br. p. 20. Hall argues that he needed more time to examine the recording and prepare for its use
at trial, yet he admits that he did not wish to delay his trial. Ultimately, Hall prioritized his speedy-trial date
over having additional time to prepare.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1406-CR-267 | February 17, 2015 Page 9 of 11
or potential for unfair harm from the statements made by Hall’s mother and
grandfather. See Walker v. State, 988 N.E.2d 341, 347 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (a
trial court’s timely and accurate admonishment to the jury is presumed
to cure any alleged error in the admission of evidence), trans. denied. We find
no error here.
[21] Hall also argues that the trial court erred by admitting the escalation-of-violence
chart. We need not determine whether the trial court erred in this respect,
however, because although Hall challenges the chart’s admission, he does not
challenge the evidence accompanying it—Wilk’s detailed testimony about the
cyclical nature of domestic violence and the progression of violent relationships.
Because the challenged evidence was cumulative of Wilk’s testimony, any error
in its admission would be harmless. See Cole v. State, 970 N.E.2d 779, 784 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2012) (An error in the admission of evidence does not justify reversal
if the evidence is cumulative of other evidence presented at trial). Moreover,
Hall used the challenged evidence to further his defense theory that Erin was
actually the aggressor. See Tr. p. 362-66 (defense counsel referencing the chart
and asking Hall’s mother to note any behaviors on the chart that Erin had
engaged in). Because the escalation-of-violence chart was cumulative of Wilk’s
testimony and Hall attempted to use the chart to his benefit, Hall’s argument on
this issue fails.
[22] Although we reject Hall’s claims of error, we note that any error would be
harmless in light of the substantial evidence of Hall’s guilt. See Hape v.
State, 903 N.E.2d 977, 991 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (an error in the admission of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1406-CR-267 | February 17, 2015 Page 10 of 11
evidence is harmless if the conviction is supported by substantial independent
evidence of guilt that satisfies the reviewing court that there is no substantial
likelihood that the challenged evidence contributed to the conviction) (citation
omitted), trans. denied. Specifically, Erin testified that Hall hit, kicked, and
choked her in front of the children. She also testified that Hall called her
degrading names and tried to stop her from calling for help. Despite Hall’s
efforts, Erin’s friend Sasha overheard the dispute and sent her boyfriend to the
house. When he arrived, he observed that Erin’s eyes, face, and neck were red
and her hair was disheveled. One of the children said that “her dad had her
mom down choking her, and told her to go downstairs so she wouldn’t see it . .
. .” When police arrived, they observed injuries to Erin’s neck, cheek, and ribs,
and a child reported that “Daddy hit Mommy again.” In light of this evidence
of Hall’s guilt, any error in the admission of the challenged evidence would
have been harmless.
[23] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Riley, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1406-CR-267 | February 17, 2015 Page 11 of 11