A.W. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED

this Memorandum Decision shall not be

Feb 28 2020, 10:35 am

regarded as precedent or cited before any

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

Rory Gallagher Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Marion County Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana

Indianapolis, Indiana

Benjamin J. Shoptaw

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

A.W., February 28, 2020

Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-JV-1793

v. Appeal from the Marion Superior

Court

State of Indiana, The Honorable Marilyn A.

Appellee-Petitioner Moores, Judge

The Honorable Geoffrey A.

Gaither, Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

49D09-1902-JD-215

May, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1793 | Febraury 28, 2020 Page 1 of 10

[1] The trial court adjudicated A.W. delinquent for an act that would constitute

Level 6 felony escape 1 if committed by an adult. He raises one issue on appeal,

which we revise and restate as whether the trial court abused its discretion in

admitting testimony regarding whether the tracking device in question had been

assigned to A.W. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On February 25, 2019, David Akers, a Community Adjustment Supervisor with

the Marion County Juvenile Probation Department, was monitoring a

computer that kept track of all juveniles placed on electronic monitoring in

Marion County. Akers noticed a “tamper alert” and he viewed a mapping

screen to identify the tampered device’s location. (Tr. Vol. II at 11.) The screen

notified Akers that the tampered monitoring device was at North Central High

School in Indianapolis. Akers went to the school and located the tracking

device in the parking lot behind the school. The tracking device’s strap had

been cut.

[3] On February 26, 2019, the State alleged A.W. was a delinquent child for

committing an act that would constitute Level 6 felony escape if committed by

an adult. The court held a fact-finding hearing on May 23, 2019. Akers was

the only witness to testify at the hearing. The trial court entered a true finding

1

Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-4.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1793 | Febraury 28, 2020 Page 2 of 10

on the charge of escape. The trial court held a dispositional hearing in July

2019 on the escape charge and two unrelated cases. The court placed A.W. in

the custody of the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”) until the age of

twenty-one unless released sooner by the DOC, with a recommended

commitment of six months.

Discussion and Decision

[4] We evaluate a decision to admit or exclude evidence using an abuse of

discretion standard because such decisions are within the trial court’s “sound

discretion” and are “afforded great deference” on appeal. Fugett v. State, 812

N.E.2d 846, 848 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). We will reverse a decision to admit

evidence only where the admission is a “manifest abuse of discretion by the trial

court resulting in the denial of a fair trial.” Johnson v. State, 831 N.E.2d 163,

168-69 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. “A decision is an abuse of discretion

if it is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before

the court. Id. at 169. A.W. argues Akers’ testimony that the electronic

monitoring device he found belonged to A.W. was inadmissible hearsay, and

he argues the State failed to lay an adequate foundation for admission of the

testimony.

[5] Generally, a party waives an argument or issue on appeal by failing to raise the

argument or issue before the trial court. Long v. State, 121 N.E.3d 1085, 1088

(Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. The State argues A.W. did not object to

Akers’ testimony that the serial number for the tracking device he recovered at

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1793 | Febraury 28, 2020 Page 3 of 10

the high school matched the serial number for the device issued to A.W., and

therefore, his argument is waived.

[6] Here, A.W. did object to Akers’ testimony multiple times on hearsay grounds.

The Court overruled Akers’ first objection but did not formally rule when A.W.

subsequently objected. The argument A.W. raised before the trial court and the

argument he raises on appeal both challenge Akers’ testimony connecting the

tracking device Akers found at the high school to A.W. Therefore, we hold

A.W.’s argument is not waived and proceed to the merits. 2 See Omni Ins. Group

v. Poage, 966 N.E.2d 750, 753 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (“We prefer to decide a case

on the merits whenever possible.”), trans. denied; see also State v. Hancock, 530

N.E.2d 106, 107 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988) (“This court repeatedly has stressed its

preference for deciding an issue on the merits rather than invoking waiver.”),

reh’g denied, trans. denied.

[7] Indiana Rule of Evidence 801 defines hearsay as “a statement that: (1) is 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.” Hearsay is inadmissible

unless it meets one of several exceptions. Ind. R. Evid. 802. Many of these

exceptions are found in Evidence Rules 803 and 804.

2

It is important for trial courts to rule on objections. If a trial court fails to do so, objecting parties are left to

wonder whether they have adequately preserved an issue for appeal. See Ind. R. Evid. 103(b) (“Once the

court rules definitively on the record at trial a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a

claim of error for appeal”) (emphasis added). Failing to rule on an objection is unfair to the parties and

reduces trust in the criminal justice system.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1793 | Febraury 28, 2020 Page 4 of 10

[8] A.W. objected first to Akers’ testimony that he was monitoring a computer

with the location of all juveniles on home detention in Marion County on

February 25, 2019, and that he received a tamper alert on the grounds that the

information Akers’ learned from monitoring his computer was hearsay. The

State argued Akers “can testify as to what he saw on the screen and what

happened afterwards.” (Tr. Vol. II at 9.) The trial court properly overruled

A.W.’s objection because that testimony was not hearsay because it was not

being offered for “the truth of the matter asserted.” Ind. R. Evid. 801. Rather,

it explains why Akers took the investigative steps that he did, and “[a]n out-of-

court statement introduced to explain why a particular course of action was

taken during a criminal investigation is not hearsay because it is not offered to

prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Goodson v. State, 747 N.E.2d 1181, 1185

(Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied. Therefore, the trial court did not err when it

overruled A.W.’s objection. See Bates-Smith v. State, 108 N.E.3d 399, 405 (Ind.

Ct. App. 2018) (holding detective’s testimony was not hearsay because it was

offered to explain the course of his investigation and the reason officers stopped

the defendant’s vehicle).

[9] A.W.’s second objection was to the State’s question, “Who was supposed to be

wearing that GPS monitoring?” (Tr. Vol. II at 9.) A.W. objected stating:

Judge I am going to ask the Court not to allow Mr. Akers to

testify about who was supposed to be wearing that monitor. He

got that information from another source. He didn’t put it on

him. He doesn’t know if that one was one that was actually

put—supposed to be on [A.W.]. All of that is based on hearsay.

Uh, he is just telling the Court what somebody else told him.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1793 | Febraury 28, 2020 Page 5 of 10

(Id. at 9-10.) The judge did not rule on this objection and allowed the State to

continue to question Akers.

[State:] Is it standard practice by your department that you

supervise to ask and inform uh juveniles who get put on GPS,

what their rules are?

[Akers:] My staff does that, yes.

[State:] So that is standard practice?

[Akers:] Yes.

[State:] And is it fair to say that your staff have been trained—

[A.W.’s Counsel:] Judge I am going to object as to—it doesn’t

matter what happens in everybody else’s case. It only matters

what happened in [A.W.’s] case. Can Mr. Akers definitively say

that this specific monitor was put on [A.W.’s] ankle and this is

the one that [A.W.] had on and this is [the] one that made the

alert. Maybe the probation officer mixed them up, maybe it was

somebody else’s monitor but Mr. Akers has no personal

knowledge as to this specific monitor being on [A.W.’s] foot or

anything that was went [sic] over with [A.W.] or any evidence.

Standard practice is not evidence.

[Court:] Uh huh but he was asking more questions. Go ahead.

(Id. at 10.)

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1793 | Febraury 28, 2020 Page 6 of 10

[10] The State then proceeded to continue to question Akers about his receipt of the

tamper alert and decision to go to North Central High School. Later in Akers’

testimony, the following exchange occurred:

[State:] And when you were [at the high school] what did you

find?

[Akers:] The GPS tracker that we had placed on [A.W.], and the

reason that I could—

[A.W.’s Counsel:] Judge I am going to object to the

characterization that we had placed. Mr. Akers did not place it.

[Court:] Okay.

[A.W.’s Counsel:] And he was not there when it happened. He

can’t testify as to how that happened or when that happened. It

is information he got from someone else, which is hearsay.

[Court:] Okay we will note your objection. Go ahead.

[State:] How did the GPS tracker appear to you?

[Akers:] When I drove to the parking lot, I was basically going

off of the last GPS points that I saw so I went to that area of

North Central, the parking lot which is behind the school near

the soft ball [sic] field and I retrieved at that time a GPS tracker

with a serial number [that] matches the same number that we

have input into the system for [A.W.]

(Id. at 11-12.)

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1793 | Febraury 28, 2020 Page 7 of 10

[11] A.W. argues Akers’ testimony that the specific device Akers found was the

device assigned to A.W. was inadmissible hearsay, and without that evidence,

there is insufficient evidence to support the true finding. The Rules of Evidence

recognize an exception to the rule against hearsay for the record of a regularly

conducted activity. Ind. R. Evid. 803(6). However, a proper foundation must

be laid before the exhibit can be admitted, which requires the proponent of the

exhibit to establish:

A) the record was made at or near the time by--or from

information transmitted by--someone with knowledge;

(B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted

activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling,

whether or not for profit;

(C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity;

(D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the

custodian or another qualified witness, or by a certification that

complies with Rule 902(9) or (10) or with a statute permitting

certification; and

(E) neither the source of information nor the method or

circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

Id. The State did not put into evidence the record indicating the serial number

of the device Akers recovered at North Central High School or the record of the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1793 | Febraury 28, 2020 Page 8 of 10

serial number recorded in the probation departments’ system for A.W.’s

device. 3

[12] Nevertheless, Indiana Code Section 35-44.1-3-4 provides: “A person who

knowingly or intentionally violates a home detention order or intentionally

removes an electronic monitoring device or GPS tracking device commits

escape, a Level 6 felony.” The State was not required to produce the specific

person who put the electronic monitoring device on A.W. in order to prove the

offense. The Probation Officer’s Report of Preliminary Inquiry indicates A.W.

was on pre-dispositional electronic monitoring on February 25, 2019, in Cause

Number 49D09-1902-JD-000146. Akers testified he discovered an electronic

monitoring device with a cut strap at North Central High School. On cross-

examination, A.W. asked Akers, “And although those numbers were input,

you don’t know if they were properly imputed [sic] and assigned to [A.W.]?”

(Tr. Vol. II at 12.) Akers answered, “I would say they were because the GPS

points prior to that always lead [sic] to wear [sic] [A.W.’s] locations were, as

did this location at North Central HS where [A.W.] was that day.” (Id.)

Therefore, A.W. was required to wear an electronic monitoring device on the

3

The Rules of Evidence are meant to ensure that judicial proceedings are conducted fairly and with an eye

towards ascertaining the truth. See Ind. R. Evid. 102. To this end, parties need to be mindful of the Rules of

Evidence and proffer evidence in accordance with the Rules. Business records are excepted from the hearsay

rule because they bear independent indicia of trustworthiness. Embry v. State, 989 N.E.2d 1260, 1264 (Ind.

Ct. App. 2013). In the case at bar, the State could have anticipated and addressed A.W.’s objections by

producing and laying the foundation for admission of the records indicating the serial number of the device

assigned to A.W.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1793 | Febraury 28, 2020 Page 9 of 10

date of the offense, Akers found a monitoring device with a cut strap on that

date, and the electronic monitoring device Akers found consistently had led to

A.W.’s location.

[13] “In bench trials, we presume that the court disregarded inadmissible evidence

and rendered its decision solely on the basis of relevant and probative

evidence.” Berry v. State, 725 N.E.2d 939, 943 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). Therefore,

even if any evidence was inadmissible here, we hold the State presented

sufficient admissible evidence to support the trial court’s true finding for escape.

See Keith v. State, 91 N.E.3d 1029, 1033 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (holding sufficient

evidence supported defendant’s escape conviction when she was supposed to go

directly home after picking up her monitoring device but she drove to numerous

other locations instead), trans. denied.

Conclusion

[14] It was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to admit evidence of Akers’

investigative activities. Further, the State presented sufficient evidence to

support the true finding even without Akers’ testimony matching the serial

number of the device he recovered at the high school to the serial number listed

in the probation department’s records. Therefore, we affirm the juvenile court.

[15] Affirmed.

Crone, J., and Pyle, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1793 | Febraury 28, 2020 Page 10 of 10