Hammon v. State (2005)

Supreme Court of Indiana · 2005 · Evidence

829 N.E.2d 444 (Ind. 2005)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceHearsayConfrontation ClauseTestimonial StatementsExcited UtteranceCrawford v. WashingtonSixth Amendmenttestimonial hearsay

Facts

Police responded at 10:55 p.m. to a reported domestic disturbance at the Hammons' home. Amy Hammon initially told Officer Mooney nothing was wrong, but after he entered the house, observed broken glass from a heater, and separated the parties, Amy told him Hershel had broken items, pushed her into the broken heater glass, and punched her in the chest; Mooney then asked her to complete and sign a battery affidavit repeating those allegations. Amy did not appear at the later consolidated bench trial and probation hearing, but Mooney testified to her oral statements and the affidavit was admitted over objection. The trial court relied on those statements to convict Hershel and find a probation violation.

Issue

Whether Amy Hammon's oral statements to responding police and her later signed battery affidavit, though admissible under hearsay exceptions, were barred by the Sixth Amendment under Crawford because they were testimonial and Hershel had no opportunity to cross-examine her. The case also presented whether her oral statements qualified as excited utterances under Indiana evidence law.

Rule

Under Indiana evidence law, a hearsay statement is an excited utterance if there was a startling event, the declarant spoke while under the stress of excitement caused by that event, and the statement related to the event. Under the Sixth Amendment as interpreted here, testimonial statements are those given or taken in significant part for purposes of preserving them for potential future use in legal proceedings; the motive of the questioner is more important than that of the declarant, but if either is principally motivated by preservation for legal use, the statement is testimonial. Responses to general initial inquiries by officers arriving at a scene are typically nontestimonial, but statements made for the purpose of recording and documenting an account for later evidentiary use are testimonial.

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 Columbus, Ohio, responded within minutes to a report of a fight at Dana Ortiz's apartment. After separating Dana from Leon Mercer, Officer Blake asked Dana, who was shaking and crying, "Tell me what happened," and Dana said Leon shoved her into a table and smashed her phone; Dana later refused to appear at Leon's criminal trial.

If the prosecution offers Officer Blake's testimony recounting Dana's oral statement, which is the strongest analysis?

Explanation. Under the majority's rule, statements are testimonial when a principal motive of either the speaker or the recipient is to preserve the statement for future legal proceedings. Responses to general initial inquiries by officers arriving at the scene are typically nontestimonial because the officer is still determining what happened, securing the scene, and deciding whether intervention is necessary. Dana's oral statement fits that preliminary-assessment category, even if it may also qualify as an excited utterance.