MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Jun 23 2017, 8:23 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 Karen Celestino-Horseman Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Justin F. Roebel Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Brandon Lonnell Spinks, June 23, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A02-1606-CR-1269 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Marc Rothenberg, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49G02-1512-F3-45587
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1269 | June 23, 2017 Page 1 of 8 [1] Brandon Spinks appeals his conviction for criminal confinement as a Level 3
felony. He contends that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting
evidence of (1) the victim’s identification of her attacker to emergency medical
providers and (2) a recorded jail call between Spinks and his six-year-old son.
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] On the afternoon of December 20, 2015, Doris Elliott became worried about
her daughter E.C. upon talking with a friend and being unable to reach E.C. by
phone. Elliott lived in Hammond, and E.C. lived in Indianapolis with her three
young children.1 After IMPD denied her request to check on her daughter’s
welfare, Elliott contacted her daughter Erica Battle, who also lived in
Indianapolis. She encouraged Battle to check on her sister.
[4] That evening, Battle and a cousin went to E.C.’s house and knocked on doors
and windows and yelled for E.C. They received no response. Battle also called
E.C.’s cellphone and landline a number of times. Eventually, after Battle had
returned to her own home, Spinks answered the landline. He indicated that he
and E.C. had “got[ten] into it” that morning and that she had left around 8:30
a.m. Transcript at 164. When Battle stated that she was going to come over to
1 Spinks is the father of the two oldest children – a son born in 2009 and a daughter born in 2010.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1269 | June 23, 2017 Page 2 of 8 see the kids, Spinks told her to hold on and then he hung up the phone. He did
not answer Battle’s return calls.
[5] Thereafter, Battle went back to E.C.’s home. No one answered the door, so she
called the police for a welfare check. Around 10:25 p.m., officers knocked and
walked the perimeter. They determined that they did not have cause to force
entry but indicated that the family could do so if they felt strongly about it.
Battle then called her mother again to decide what to do, and Elliott said to kick
the door down. Battle recruited others to help in the effort.
[6] After several kicks to the front door, Spinks yelled from inside and told them to
stop. Spinks argued with the group through the door and stated that E.C. was
alright. Battle eventually saw E.C. through a window and believed she looked
frightened. The group then moved to the back of the home and broke through
the sliding glass door. E.C. ran out with the children, as Battle and others
struggled with Spinks until he fled the scene. E.C. “just kept crying and kept
crying” and said she thought she was going to die. Id. at 175. She had injuries
all over her body, including more than a dozen lacerations from being whipped
with a cord, a blunt-force injury to her head, multiple bruises, and hair pulled
out from the scalp.
[7] Police returned to the home shortly after 11:30 p.m., and E.C. was transported
to the hospital. While being treated for her multiple injuries, E.C. informed her
nurse that the father of her children had assaulted her over a period of several
hours that day. Similarly, E.C. told her treating physician that her child’s father
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1269 | June 23, 2017 Page 3 of 8 caused her injuries. E.C. indicated that she was pressing charges and assured
her medical providers that she had a safe place to stay. E.C.’s nurse provided
her with information on domestic violence upon her release, and E.C. left the
hospital with a female friend or relative.
[8] On December 23, 2015, the State charged Spinks with a number of counts
related to the assault, several of which were later dismissed. Following a jury
trial, Spinks was convicted of Level 3 felony criminal confinement.2 On May
18, 2016, the trial court sentenced Spinks to thirteen years, with ten years
executed in the Department of Correction, one year in community corrections,
and two years suspended to probation. On appeal, Spinks challenges the
admission of certain evidence at trial. Additional information will be provided
below as needed.
Standard of Review
[9] A trial court’s decision regarding the admission of evidence is squarely within
that court’s discretion, and we afford it great deference on appeal. VanPatten v.
State, 986 N.E.2d 255, 260 (Ind. 2013). We will not reverse such a decision
unless it is clearly contrary to the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances
of the case or misinterprets the law. Id.
2 The jury found him guilty of two additional counts for which the trial court did not enter convictions due to double jeopardy concerns.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1269 | June 23, 2017 Page 4 of 8 Discussion & Decision
1. Statement to Medical Providers
[10] Spinks challenges evidence that was admitted pursuant to the hearsay exception
for statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment – Indiana
Evidence Rule 803(4). Specifically, the nurse and doctor who treated E.C.
testified, over Spinks’s objection, to statements made by E.C. regarding the
identity of her attacker. Spinks argues that “the identity of the alleged assailant
was not necessary for medical treatment or diagnosis.” Appellant’s Brief at 11.
[11] Evid. R. 803(4) permits statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis
or treatment to be admitted into evidence, even when the declarant is available.
The rule requires that the statement:
(A) is made by a person seeking medical diagnosis or treatment;
(B) is made for--and is reasonably pertinent to--medical diagnosis or treatment; and
(C) describes medical history; past or present symptoms, pain or sensations; their inception; or their general cause.
Id. The exception is grounded in a belief that the declarant’s self-interest in
obtaining proper medical treatment makes such a statement reliable enough for
admission at trial. VanPatten, 986 N.E.2d at 260.
This belief of reliability, though, necessitates a two-step analysis for admission under Rule 803(4): First, “is the declarant motivated to provide truthful information in order to promote diagnosis and treatment,” and second, “is the content of the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Jun 23 2017, 8:23 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 Karen Celestino-Horseman Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Justin F. Roebel Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Brandon Lonnell Spinks, June 23, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A02-1606-CR-1269 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Marc Rothenberg, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49G02-1512-F3-45587
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1269 | June 23, 2017 Page 1 of 8 [1] Brandon Spinks appeals his conviction for criminal confinement as a Level 3
felony. He contends that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting
evidence of (1) the victim’s identification of her attacker to emergency medical
providers and (2) a recorded jail call between Spinks and his six-year-old son.
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] On the afternoon of December 20, 2015, Doris Elliott became worried about
her daughter E.C. upon talking with a friend and being unable to reach E.C. by
phone. Elliott lived in Hammond, and E.C. lived in Indianapolis with her three
young children.1 After IMPD denied her request to check on her daughter’s
welfare, Elliott contacted her daughter Erica Battle, who also lived in
Indianapolis. She encouraged Battle to check on her sister.
[4] That evening, Battle and a cousin went to E.C.’s house and knocked on doors
and windows and yelled for E.C. They received no response. Battle also called
E.C.’s cellphone and landline a number of times. Eventually, after Battle had
returned to her own home, Spinks answered the landline. He indicated that he
and E.C. had “got[ten] into it” that morning and that she had left around 8:30
a.m. Transcript at 164. When Battle stated that she was going to come over to
1 Spinks is the father of the two oldest children – a son born in 2009 and a daughter born in 2010.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1269 | June 23, 2017 Page 2 of 8 see the kids, Spinks told her to hold on and then he hung up the phone. He did
not answer Battle’s return calls.
[5] Thereafter, Battle went back to E.C.’s home. No one answered the door, so she
called the police for a welfare check. Around 10:25 p.m., officers knocked and
walked the perimeter. They determined that they did not have cause to force
entry but indicated that the family could do so if they felt strongly about it.
Battle then called her mother again to decide what to do, and Elliott said to kick
the door down. Battle recruited others to help in the effort.
[6] After several kicks to the front door, Spinks yelled from inside and told them to
stop. Spinks argued with the group through the door and stated that E.C. was
alright. Battle eventually saw E.C. through a window and believed she looked
frightened. The group then moved to the back of the home and broke through
the sliding glass door. E.C. ran out with the children, as Battle and others
struggled with Spinks until he fled the scene. E.C. “just kept crying and kept
crying” and said she thought she was going to die. Id. at 175. She had injuries
all over her body, including more than a dozen lacerations from being whipped
with a cord, a blunt-force injury to her head, multiple bruises, and hair pulled
out from the scalp.
[7] Police returned to the home shortly after 11:30 p.m., and E.C. was transported
to the hospital. While being treated for her multiple injuries, E.C. informed her
nurse that the father of her children had assaulted her over a period of several
hours that day. Similarly, E.C. told her treating physician that her child’s father
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1269 | June 23, 2017 Page 3 of 8 caused her injuries. E.C. indicated that she was pressing charges and assured
her medical providers that she had a safe place to stay. E.C.’s nurse provided
her with information on domestic violence upon her release, and E.C. left the
hospital with a female friend or relative.
[8] On December 23, 2015, the State charged Spinks with a number of counts
related to the assault, several of which were later dismissed. Following a jury
trial, Spinks was convicted of Level 3 felony criminal confinement.2 On May
18, 2016, the trial court sentenced Spinks to thirteen years, with ten years
executed in the Department of Correction, one year in community corrections,
and two years suspended to probation. On appeal, Spinks challenges the
admission of certain evidence at trial. Additional information will be provided
below as needed.
Standard of Review
[9] A trial court’s decision regarding the admission of evidence is squarely within
that court’s discretion, and we afford it great deference on appeal. VanPatten v.
State, 986 N.E.2d 255, 260 (Ind. 2013). We will not reverse such a decision
unless it is clearly contrary to the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances
of the case or misinterprets the law. Id.
2 The jury found him guilty of two additional counts for which the trial court did not enter convictions due to double jeopardy concerns.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1269 | June 23, 2017 Page 4 of 8 Discussion & Decision
1. Statement to Medical Providers
[10] Spinks challenges evidence that was admitted pursuant to the hearsay exception
for statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment – Indiana
Evidence Rule 803(4). Specifically, the nurse and doctor who treated E.C.
testified, over Spinks’s objection, to statements made by E.C. regarding the
identity of her attacker. Spinks argues that “the identity of the alleged assailant
was not necessary for medical treatment or diagnosis.” Appellant’s Brief at 11.
[11] Evid. R. 803(4) permits statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis
or treatment to be admitted into evidence, even when the declarant is available.
The rule requires that the statement:
(A) is made by a person seeking medical diagnosis or treatment;
(B) is made for--and is reasonably pertinent to--medical diagnosis or treatment; and
(C) describes medical history; past or present symptoms, pain or sensations; their inception; or their general cause.
Id. The exception is grounded in a belief that the declarant’s self-interest in
obtaining proper medical treatment makes such a statement reliable enough for
admission at trial. VanPatten, 986 N.E.2d at 260.
This belief of reliability, though, necessitates a two-step analysis for admission under Rule 803(4): First, “is the declarant motivated to provide truthful information in order to promote diagnosis and treatment,” and second, “is the content of the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1269 | June 23, 2017 Page 5 of 8 statement such that an expert in the field would reasonably rely on it in rendering diagnosis or treatment.”
Id. (quoting McClain v. State, 675 N.E.2d 329, 331 (Ind. 1996)).
[12] Although statements attributing fault or establishing a perpetrator’s identity are
usually inadmissible under the medical diagnosis and treatment exception, this
is not true for cases involving child abuse, sexual assault, or domestic violence.
Ward v. State, 50 N.E.3d 752, 759 (Ind. 2016); Perry v. State, 956 N.E.2d 41, 49
(Ind. Ct. App. 2011). Given the unique nature of domestic violence cases, our
Supreme Court has recognized that “identifying attackers is integral to the
standard of care for ‘medical treatment’ of domestic abuse victims.” Ward, 50
N.E.3d at 761. Indeed, “patient safety is a ‘critical’ part of the comprehensive
standard of care for treating victims of domestic violence.” Id. at 763.
The standard of care for “medical treatment” of domestic abuse goes beyond physical injuries, and even beyond immediate outcomes like who takes a victim home or what medications a patient receives. Rather, it requires nurses and physicians to rely on information obtained from patients to triage their injuries – both mental and physical – and implement comprehensive treatment plans. Doctors and nurses need to know the identity of the perpetrator when treating a victim of domestic violence.
Id. (emphasis in original).
[13] Nothing in the particular circumstances of this case leads us away from our
Supreme Court’s conclusion in Ward that identifying a domestic violence
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1269 | June 23, 2017 Page 6 of 8 victim’s attacker is integral to the medical standard of care for such cases.3
Here, the nurse testified that knowing the identity of the attacker “is helpful in
providing resources for the patient” and ensuring their safety in the hospital by
alerting security and making the patient’s chart private. Transcript at 259.
Similarly, E.C.’s doctor testified that treating the patient as a whole (that is,
beyond their physical injuries) includes addressing the patient’s safety and
emotional needs. Cole’s statements to her nurse and doctor in the emergency
room regarding the identity of her attacker were properly admitted under Evid.
R. 803(4).
2. Recorded Jail Call
[14] Spinks also challenges the admission of a redacted recording of a jail call
between himself and his six-year-old son, B.S.J.4 The child’s speech on the
recording is muddled and difficult to understand. Spinks, however, understood
B.S.J.’s statements to him as follows: “Don’t kill my Momma” and “I’m gonna
beat you up.” Exhibits, State’s Exhibit 52-R. When B.S.J. then inquired as to
where Spinks was, Spinks indicated that he was in jail and that “Daddy messed
up” and “Daddy made a uh-oh.” Id. Spinks claims that B.S.J.’s statements
3 Contrary to Spinks’s assertion on appeal, the holding in Ward is not limited to statements obtained by forensic nurses. 4 Spinks initiated the call from the Marion County Jail by calling a third party who in turn called E.C. In this three-way call, Spinks spoke with E.C. and B.S.J. The recording admitted into evidence was substantially redacted.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1269 | June 23, 2017 Page 7 of 8 should have been redacted from the recording because they were more
prejudicial than probative.
[15] Indiana Evidence Rule 403 provides: “The court may exclude relevant evidence
if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of
the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue
delay, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” “Evaluation of whether
the probative value of an evidentiary matter is substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice is a discretionary task best performed by the trial
court.” Bryant v. State, 984 N.E.2d 240, 249 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied.
[16] Here, B.S.J.’s declarations during the jail call with Spinks provided context for
Spinks’s subsequent (unchallenged) statement to the child that he was in jail
because he had messed up. In other words, the child’s prompts made it more
probable that Spinks was referring to the charged offenses when he made his
admission. While the probative value of this evidence may be low, so too was
its prejudicial effect. Thus, we cannot say that the trial court abused its
discretion in this regard.
[17] Judgment affirmed.
Baker, J. and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1269 | June 23, 2017 Page 8 of 8