allowing a sexual assault nurse examiner to apply her expertise to testify as to whether redness and irritation in the victim’s vaginal area was likely the result of forced sex
How later courts described this case
- allowing a sexual assault nurse examiner to apply her expertise to testify as to whether redness and irritation in the victim’s vaginal area was likely the result of forced sex
- affirming the trial court’s decision, under Evidence Rule 702(a), to allow a SANE nurse to testify regarding a sexual abuse examination due to her specialized knowledge
- “an abuse of [] discretion occurs when the instructions, as a whole, mislead the jury as to the law in the case”
- rape victim's 911 phone call at least four hours after incident was admissible as an excited utterance
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BAKER, Judge,
concurring in result.
I agree with the decision to affirm New-bill’s conviction for rape, but I part ways with the majority’s determination that the 911 call qualified an excited utterance in these circumstances. Even so, the majority acknowledges that H.R. testified at Newbill’s trial and verified her own voice on the 911 tape. Op. at 390. Moreover, H.R. was subject to cross-examination, and she did not tell the police dispatcher in the 911 call anything that she did not also tell the jury. Therefore, even though it may have been error to have admitted the 911 tape under the under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, the error was harmless because the statements that H.R. made to the police dispatcher were cumulative of her trial testimony. See Buchanan v. State, 767 N.E.2d 967, 970 (Ind.2002) (holding that improperly admitted evidence is harmless error if the erroneously admitted evidence was cumulative of other evidence that was properly admit *399 ted). For these reasons, I concur in result.