Camm v. State
Indiana Supreme Court
908 N.E.2d 215 (2009)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
David Camm (defendant) was tried for killing his wife, Kim Camm, and their two children. At trial, David’s alibi was a contested issue. David claimed he was playing basketball at the time of the murders, which occurred at around 7:30 pm. However, Cindy Mattingly testified that she spoke to Kim on the morning of the murders. According to Mattingly, Kim had said that she expected David to be home between 7:00 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. that night, although she did not tell Mattingly why she believed that. This evidence was admitted to show that David’s alibi might be false. David was convicted of the murders and appealed. On appeal, David argued that Kim’s statement about when she expected him home was hearsay and did not qualify for any exception.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Dickson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
