# Newbill v. State

> Indiana Court of Appeals · April 16, 2008 · 884 N.E.2d 383

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9523580

## Case

- **Full name:** Lawrence E. NEWBILL, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
- **Court:** Indiana Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** April 16, 2008
- **Citations:** 884 N.E.2d 383; 2008 Ind. App. LEXIS 727; 2008 WL 1734897
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Baker
- **Judges:** Darden, Bradford, Baker
- **Cited by:** 19 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9523580

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9523580. Public record. Not legal advice.