MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jun 26 2017, 8:54 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Stanley L. Campbell Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Fort Wayne, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
James B. Martin
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Antion Hill, June 26, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
02A03-1610-CR-2440
v. Appeal from the Allen Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Wendy W. Davis,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
02D04-1607-F6-778
Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1610-CR-2440 | June 26, 2017 Page 1 of 4
Case Summary
[1] Antion Hill appeals his conviction for Level 6 felony domestic battery. We
affirm.
Issue
[2] Hill raises one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court abused its
discretion by admitting a summary of text messages exchanged between the
victim and the Fort Wayne/Allen County 911 call center.
Facts
[3] On July 6, 2016, M.E. was living with Hill at the Coliseum Inn in Fort Wayne.
On that morning, Hill was angry because he did not have any cigarettes. M.E.
asked him what he wanted her to do, and he slapped her. When she tried to
leave, he would not let her. Later that day, Hill became upset because he did
not have any beer, and M.E. “smarted off” about the situation. Tr. Vol. II p.
100. Hill then back-handed her, and M.E. blocked his hand. Hill shoved her
into a closet, put his hands around her neck, and punched her in the chest
approximately sixteen times. M.E. dialed 911 with her cell phone but hung up
“real quick.” Id. at 101. She lost consciousness for a while, but when she woke
up, she saw that the 911 call center was sending her text messages, and she
responded. The police arrived a few minutes later. When Hill opened the
door, M.E. mouthed to the officers that Hill had been beating her and that she
needed help. M.E. had bruising to her chest, arms, and neck.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1610-CR-2440 | June 26, 2017 Page 2 of 4
[4] The State charged Hill with Level 6 felony domestic battery and Level 6 felony
strangulation. At Hill’s jury trial, the State sought the admission of the
summary of text messages exchanged between M.E. and the 911 call center.
Hill objected based on relevancy, and the trial court overruled the objection.
The jury found Hill guilty of domestic battery but not guilty of strangulation.
The trial court sentenced Hill to two and one-half years in the Department of
Correction. Hill now appeals.
Analysis
[5] Hill argues that the trial court erred by admitting the summary of text messages
exchanged between M.E. and the 911 call center. We review the admission of
evidence for an abuse of discretion. Wilson v. State, 765 N.E.2d 1265, 1272
(Ind. 2002). An abuse of discretion occurs “where the decision is clearly
against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Smith v. State, 754
N.E.2d 502, 504 (Ind. 2001). The admission of evidence is harmless and is not
grounds for reversal where the evidence is merely cumulative of other properly
admitted evidence. Gaines v. State, 999 N.E.2d 999, 1005 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
[6] On appeal, Hill argues that the trial court erred by admitting the document
because there was no testimony regarding when the text messages were sent or
who sent them. However, even if the trial court erred by admitting the
document, any error was harmless. Juatanne Gersos, deputy director of the 911
call center, testified that, if the call center receives a 911 hang up, they call the
number back. If no one answers, they text the number if it is a cell phone. The
State asked Gersos about “control number 16F09060,” and Gersos testified that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1610-CR-2440 | June 26, 2017 Page 3 of 4
the suspect on that control number was Hill, that the victim was M.E., that the
text records are kept in the ordinary course of business, and that State’s Exhibit
1 was a fair and accurate representation of the text records. Tr. Vol. II p. 87.
The State then sought to admit State’s Exhibit 1, and Hill objected on the basis
of relevancy. Hill argued that there needed to be evidence regarding who sent
the text messages and the telephone number that was sending the text message.
The trial court found that the document was relevant and overruled Hill’s
objection. The document details text messages between M.E. and 911 in which
M.E. requests police assistance because Hill had “just beat my a**.” State’s
Exhibit 1. M.E. later testified that she had been texting with 911 and that Hill
had slapped, back-handed, and punched her. The information found in the
document was completely cumulative of M.E.’s testimony. Consequently, any
error in the admission of the document was harmless.
Conclusion
[7] Any error in the admission of the summary of text messages between M.E. and
the 911 call center was harmless. We affirm.
[8] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1610-CR-2440 | June 26, 2017 Page 4 of 4