Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
Oct 06 2014, 6:37 am
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:
SUZY ST. JOHN GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Marion County Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
MONIKA PREKOPA TALBOT
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
WARREN WILLIAMS, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A02-1309-CR-746
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Shatrese Flowers, Commissioner
Cause No. 49F19-1306-CM-38121
October 6, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAY, Judge
Warren Williams appeals his conviction after a bench trial of Class A misdemeanor
resisting law enforcement.1 He asserts the court’s erroneous admission of “course of the
police investigation” evidence requires reversal of his conviction. (Appellant’s Br. at i.)
Because the evidence about which Williams complains was cumulative of other evidence
admitted without objection, any error was harmless and, thus, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 10, 2013, Sergeant James Vaughn of the Beech Grove Police Department was
dispatched to 606 Memorial Drive on a report Williams, who was wanted on a warrant, was
at that location. On the way to the scene, Sergeant Vaughn confirmed the validity of the
warrant, which provided a description of Williams. As Sergeant Vaughn and Officer Lee
Huffman, both of whom were in full police uniform and marked police cars, pulled up to
their destination, Sergeant Vaughn saw a person matching Williams’ description running
away from the area. Sergeant Vaughn and Officer Huffman gave chase, and Officer
Huffman yelled, at least twice, for Williams to “Stop, and get on the ground.” (Tr. at 27.)
Williams initially did not stop, but after a short while Sergeant Vaughn found Williams lying
on the ground. The officers confirmed Williams’ identity and took him into custody.
The State charged Williams with Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.
Sergeant Vaughn testified he “received information at roll call that Warren Williams who had
a local warrant had been at [606 Memorial Drive] the previous day.” (Id. at 10.) Williams
objected, asserting that testimony was inadmissible hearsay. The State argued the testimony
1
Ind. Code 35-44.1-3-1(a)(3) (2012).
2
was offered to demonstrate why Sergeant Vaughn went to 606 Memorial Drive to look for
Williams, not to demonstrate the truth of the information Sergeant Vaughn heard at roll call.
The court admitted the testimony over Williams’ objection. Sergeant Vaughn then testified
that he checked the status of Williams’ warrant on the way to 606 Memorial Drive and found
the arrest warrant was still valid. The court convicted Williams of resisting law enforcement
and imposed a 365-day sentence.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Admission of evidence falls generally within the sound discretion of the trial court.
Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 871 (Ind. 2012), reh’g denied. We review the admission of
evidence only for an abuse of that discretion, which occurs if the court’s decision was against
the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. “[E]rrors in the admission of
evidence are to be disregarded unless they affect the substantial rights of a party.” Hoglund
v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1230, 1238 (Ind. 2012), reh’g denied. Any possible harm from the
erroneous admission of evidence is lessened when trial is to the court, sitting without a jury,
because we presume the trial court disregarded inadmissible evidence and rendered its
decision on the basis of relevant and probative evidence. See Conley, 972 N.E.2d at 873
(“We presume the trial judge . . . considers only evidence properly before him or her in
reaching a decision.”).
Williams asserts the court erroneously admitted Sergeant Vaughn’s testimony that he
received information at roll call about the existence of a warrant for Williams’ arrest.
Williams claims that testimony was inadmissible hearsay. Hearsay is a statement that: (1) is
3
not made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing; and (2) is offered in
evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Ind. Evidence Rule 801. Unless hearsay
falls into one of a number of exceptions, it is inadmissible at trial. Evid. Rule 802.
We need not, however, decide whether Sergeant Vaughn’s testimony about the
information he received at roll call was inadmissible as hearsay because we do not reverse for
the erroneous admission of hearsay testimony that was “merely cumulative of other evidence
admitted.” Wilkes v. State, 7 N.E.3d 402, 405 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). At trial, Sergeant
Vaughn also testified:
Q And how --- so --- you are at roll call. Find out there’s a warrant.
A Correct.
Q What happens next?
A Well, we got dispatched later in the day to that address and we were
told Warren Williams was at the address.
Q What --- how – how were you dispatched or how was that knowledge
acquired?
A Over the radio.
Q All right. And was there a description given of Mr. Williams?
A Yes, we were given a description of a white male, five-ten with brown
hair.
Q And what did you do after you received that dispatch?
A At that point, I ran the warrant again to make sure that it was still
valid. The warrant was. At that point we proceeded over to the
address.
Q And the information contained in the warrant, was it consistent with the
information that you re --- you obtained at roll call?
A Yes.
Q Did the warrant give the description of the person who had an
outstanding warrant?
A Yes.
(Tr. at 13-14) (emphasis added). Because Sergeant Vaughn testified that he checked the
computer system and found a valid warrant for Williams’ arrest, his testimony about what he
4
heard at roll call was “merely cumulative” of other information admitted, see Wilkes, 7
N.E.3d at 405, and accordingly, we need not reverse. See id. (finding no fundamental error
in admission of cumulative evidence).
Affirmed.
KIRSCH, J., and BAILEY, J., concur.
5