Hammon v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals · 2004 · Evidence

809 N.E.2d 945 (Ind. App. 2004)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceHearsayExcited UtteranceConfrontation ClauseCash Bondtestimonial statementsCrawford v. Washingtonpolice questioning

Facts

Officer Mooney responded to a domestic disturbance call and found A.H. timid and frightened at the residence. Inside, he observed the living room in disarray, with broken objects on the floor and flames coming from a shattered heater. After separating Hammon from A.H., Mooney heard A.H. say that Hammon had thrown her into the broken glass and punched her twice in the chest; when Hammon approached the room, A.H. became quiet and seemed afraid. A.H. did not testify at trial, but Officer Mooney recounted her statements, and the trial court convicted Hammon.

Issue

Did the trial court err in admitting Officer Mooney's testimony about A.H.'s out-of-court statements under the excited utterance exception and in light of Crawford's Confrontation Clause requirements? Did the trial court also err by retaining Hammon's cash bond to cover fees and public defender costs?

Rule

A statement is an excited utterance if: (1) a startling event occurs; (2) the declarant makes the statement while under the stress of excitement caused by the event; and (3) the statement relates to the event. For Confrontation Clause purposes after Crawford, out-of-court statements are excluded absent unavailability and prior cross-examination only if they are testimonial; statements made during informal, on-the-scene questioning by police responding to a request for assistance shortly after an incident are not testimonial. A trial court may not retain money from a bond remittance for other purposes unless the bond was a 10% cash or securities deposit.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Police in Toledo, Ohio respond within minutes to a 911 call from an apartment building. Officer Lena Ortiz finds Dana Mercer trembling in a hallway outside her unit, and inside she sees an overturned lamp, broken dishes, and a cracked interior door; after Dana's boyfriend is led to another room, Dana says he shoved her into the wall and threw the lamp.

At Dana's battery trial, Dana does not testify. The prosecution offers Officer Ortiz's testimony recounting Dana's statement. What is the strongest basis for admitting it?

Explanation. The majority held that a statement is an excited utterance when a startling event occurred, the declarant spoke while still under the stress of that event, and the statement related to it. Physical disorder at the scene plus the declarant's frightened condition can establish the first two elements. The State need not prove the precise elapsed time, and a statement does not lose excited-utterance status merely because it was made in response to a question.