805 N.E.2d 401 (Ind.App. 2004), 55A04-0311-CR-564, Iqbal v. State

Docket Nº55A04-0311-CR-564.
Citation805 N.E.2d 401
Party NameShahid IQBAL, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
Case DateMarch 22, 2004
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

Page 401

805 N.E.2d 401 (Ind.App. 2004)

Shahid IQBAL, Appellant-Defendant,

v.

STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.

No. 55A04-0311-CR-564.

Court of Appeals of Indiana

March 22, 2004.

Page 402

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 403

Patrick M. Schrems, Bloomington, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Joby Jerrells, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

OPINION

RILEY, Judge.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant-Defendant, Shahid Iqbal (Iqbal), appeals his conviction for Count I, murder, Ind.Code §§ 35-42-1-1(1), 35-50-2-3; Count II & III, criminal confinement with a deadly weapon, a Class B felony, I.C. §§ 35-42-3-3(1), 35-50-2-5; Count IV, neglect of a dependent, a Class D felony, I.C. §§ 35-46-1-4(a)(1), 35-50-2-5; Count V, carrying a handgun without a license, a Class A misdemeanor, I.C. §§ 35-47-2-1, 35-50-3-2; and Count VI, invasion of privacy, a Class B misdemeanor, I.C. §§ 35-46-1-15.1(a)(1), 35-50-3-3.

We affirm.

ISSUES

Iqbal raises two issues on appeal, which we restate as follows:

1. Whether the trial court erred by admitting evidence of Iqbal's prior bad acts to show intent, motive, relationship of

Page 404

the parties, or absence of mistake or accident when it balanced the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect by limiting the evidence to events that occurred one year prior to the victim's death; and

2. Whether the trial court erred by admitting into evidence expert testimony on domestic violence.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Iqbal and Tammy Iqbal (Tammy) were married in 1995. Iqbal was originally married to Tammy's mother; however, after their divorce he married Tammy. 1 Iqbal and Tammy had a rocky and unstable marriage and by July 6, 2002, Tammy had moved into an apartment at 66 East Main Street, in Mooresville, Indiana. She was in the process of divorcing Iqbal and had a new boyfriend. At first, Iqbal accepted Tammy's decision, but later he told Tammy's sister that "nobody could ever have her if he couldn't have her." (Transcript pp. 903-04).

Previously, on March 18, 2002, Iqbal placed a gun against Tammy's head and threatened to kill her. She managed to talk "the gun down" and when Iqbal placed the gun on the refrigerator, she fled to Allen's Body Shop. (Tr. p. 731). Captain Richard Allen of the Mooresville Police Department (Captain Allen) questioned Iqbal, who denied the fight with Tammy and the existence of the gun in the apartment. Nonetheless, Captain Allen discovered the gun on top of the refrigerator. As a result of Iqbal's action, the trial court issued a protective order. The State charged Iqbal with criminal confinement, pointing a firearm, and trespassing. These charges were pending as of July 4, 2002.

On July 4, 2002, ten-year-old A.I. spent the night with her father, Iqbal, and returned to her mother's apartment the next day. When A.I. awoke on the morning of July 6, 2002, Iqbal was in the apartment arguing with Tammy while he had a gun in his hand. Although Tammy and A.I. attempted to leave the apartment several times, Iqbal continually grabbed Tammy's shoulder while holding the gun. While in the front room of the apartment, Tammy took the gun from Iqbal, removed the bullets from the magazine, and threw them on the floor. During this argument, A.I. was scared and dropped down on the floor several times. Eventually, Iqbal grabbed Tammy's fingers, pulled them backwards, and wrestled the gun from Tammy's hands. Once he gained control over the weapon, Iqbal reloaded it.

When the argument quelled, Iqbal and Tammy resumed talking. Iqbal stood at the end of a counter while Tammy sat a few feet away in a chair at the kitchen table. A.I. was nearby, playing with her brother's game boy when she heard a gunshot. Immediately after the shot, A.I. noticed the gun on the counter and observed Iqbal sitting on the couch. A.I. started crying, threw the game boy across the room, and ran from the apartment. Janice Smith (Janice), a neighbor who was standing on her porch, attempted to calm A.I. When Janice took A.I. back to the apartment, she observed Iqbal with the telephone in his hand, picking up the gun from the counter. At no time did Iqbal approach Tammy or console A.I. During interrogation by the Mooresville Police Department, Iqbal claimed that the gun "went off by itself." (Appellant's App. p. 128). He further stated that he and Tammy were getting along well and "had sex and everything" the night before he shot

Page 405

her. (Appellant's App. p. 83). Tammy later died from her wounds at the hospital.

On July 8, 2002, the State filed an information against Iqbal, charging him with Count I, reckless homicide, later amended to murder, Ind.Code §§ 35-42-1-1(1), 35-50-2-3; Count II & III, criminal confinement with a deadly weapon, a Class B felony, I.C. §§ 35-42-3-3(1), 35-50-2-5; Count IV, neglect of a dependent, a Class D felony, I.C. §§ 35-46-1-4(a)(1), 35-50-2-5; Count V, carrying a handgun without a license, a Class A misdemeanor, I.C. §§ 35-47-2-1, 35-50-3-2; and Count VI, invasion of privacy, a Class B misdemeanor, I.C. §§ 35-46-1-15.1(a)(1), 35-50-3-3. On September 10, 2002, the State filed its 404(b) Motion, amended on February 12, 2003, to introduce the evidence of Iqbal's prior bad acts during trial. On May 1, 2003, the trial court conducted a hearing on the State's Motion to introduce 404(b) evidence. Subsequently, on May 30, 2003, the trial court issued its Order, stating in pertinent part:

[t]herefore the [c]ourt, having evaluated the evidence the State seeks to admit by the standards set out above, now finds the evidence is relevant because [Iqbal] denies any intent to commit murder and specifically alleges that the shooting was accidental. The [c]ourt finds that the probative value of the evidence which occurred one year prior to Tammy's death on July 6, 2002, outweighs the prejudicial effect. However, no 404(b) evidence for incidents prior to July 7, 2001, will be allowed unless the defense would open the door to such evidence. Because [Iqbal] has gone beyond merely denying he intentionally committed the shooting and is claiming "accident," the State may refer to the allowable 404(b) evidence prior to [Iqbal] putting it in issue at the trial if the evidence is legally admissible on all other grounds.

(Appellant's App. p. 43).

On June 2 through June 6, 2003, a jury trial was held. During the jury trial, the trial court issued a limine instruction to the jury advising them to consider the character evidence only as it related to Iqbal's intent, motive, relationship with Tammy, and absence of mistake or accident. At the end of the jury trial, the jury returned a guilty verdict on all charges. On July 3, 2003, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing. During this hearing, the trial court sentenced Iqbal to a cumulative term of fifty-eight years at the Indiana Department of Correction.

Iqbal now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

I. Prior Bad Acts

Iqbal first alleges that the trial court committed reversible error by allowing the State to introduce evidence during its case-in-chief of his prior bad acts committed between July 7, 2001, and July 6, 2002. Specifically, Iqbal asserts that the trial court erred when it admitted evidence of these prior acts, in particular the March 18, 2002 incident, because Iqbal never went beyond a mere denial of the murder and affirmatively presented a claim of contrary intent. Conversely, the State contends that the trial court properly admitted the character evidence to show, individually or a combination of, motive, intent, relationship between the parties, or lack of accident or mistake. Alternatively, even if the admission of the evidence was erroneous, the State maintains that the error was harmless due to the substantial amount of evidence of Iqbal's intent to commit murder presented at trial.

Page 406

A. Standard of Review

We review a trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of discretion. Timberlake v. State, 690 N.E.2d 243, 255 (Ind.1997), reh'g denied, cert. denied. An abuse of discretion occurs if a trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Joyner v. State, 678 N.E.2d 386, 390 (Ind.1997), reh'g denied. However, if a trial court abused its discretion by admitting the challenged evidence, we will only reverse for that error if "the error is inconsistent with substantial justice" or if "a substantial right of the party is affected." Timberlake, 690 N.E.2d at 255. Any error caused by the admission of evidence is harmless error for which we will not reverse a conviction if the erroneously admitted evidence was cumulative of other evidence appropriately admitted. Stephenson v. State, 742 N.E.2d 463, 481 (Ind.2001), cert. denied.

Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b) provides, in pertinent part, that:

Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident ...

This rule is "designed to prevent the jury from assessing a defendant's present guilt on the basis of his past propensities, the so-called 'forbidden inference.' " Hicks. v. State, 690 N.E.2d 215, 218-19 (Ind.1997). Thus, in assessing the admissibility of evidence under Ind. Evidence Rule 404(b), the trial court must: (1) determine whether the evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is relevant to a matter at issue other than the defendant's propensity to commit the charged act;...

To continue reading

Request your trial
119 practice notes
  • Luke v. State, 022416 INCA, 15A01-1409-CR-407
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 24, 2016
    ...the victim are admissible "to show the relationship between the parties and appellant's motive"), reh'g denied; Iqbal v. State, 805 N.E.2d 401, 408-409 (Ind.Ct.App. 2004) (holding that evidence relating to a prior incident in which the defendant put a gun to the victim's head and ......
  • 51 N.E.3d 401 (Ind.App. 2016), 15A01-1409-CR-407, Luke v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 24, 2016
    ...admissible " to show the relationship between the parties and appellant's motive" ), reh'g denied; Iqbal v. State, 805 N.E.2d 401, 408-409 (Ind.Ct.App. 2004) (holding that evidence relating to a prior incident in which the defendant put a gun to the victim's......
  • 977 N.E.2d 31 (Ind.App. 2012), 03A01-1110-CR-496, Bryant v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • October 11, 2012
    ...motive and intent to commit the murder and illuminated the relationship between the defendant and victim" ); Iqbal v. State, 805 N.E.2d 401, 408-409 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (holding that the evidence relating to a prior incident in which the defendant put a gun to the victim's head and threa......
  • 876 N.E.2d 389 (Ind.App. 2007), 48A02-0611-CR-999, Jones v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 8, 2007
    ...is admissible to prove lack of mistake or accident. Goldsberry v. State, 821 N.E.2d 447, 456 (Ind.Ct.App. 2005) (citing Iqbal v. State, 805 N.E.2d 401, 408 (Ind.Ct.App. 2004)). In Iqbal, we observed, "[n]umerous cases have held that where a relationship between parties is characterized......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
119 cases
  • Luke v. State, 022416 INCA, 15A01-1409-CR-407
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 24, 2016
    ...the victim are admissible "to show the relationship between the parties and appellant's motive"), reh'g denied; Iqbal v. State, 805 N.E.2d 401, 408-409 (Ind.Ct.App. 2004) (holding that evidence relating to a prior incident in which the defendant put a gun to the victim's head and ......
  • 51 N.E.3d 401 (Ind.App. 2016), 15A01-1409-CR-407, Luke v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 24, 2016
    ...admissible " to show the relationship between the parties and appellant's motive" ), reh'g denied; Iqbal v. State, 805 N.E.2d 401, 408-409 (Ind.Ct.App. 2004) (holding that evidence relating to a prior incident in which the defendant put a gun to the victim's......
  • 966 N.E.2d 96 (Ind.App. 2012), 45A03-1104-CR-168, Collins v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • March 23, 2012
    ...with the victim may be admitted to show the relationship between the parties and motive for committing the crime." Iqbal v. State, 805 N.E.2d 401, 408 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (citing Hicks, 690 N.E.2d at 222; Haggenjos v. State, 441 N.E.2d 430, 431 (Ind.1982)). Where a defendant claims self-......
  • 977 N.E.2d 31 (Ind.App. 2012), 03A01-1110-CR-496, Bryant v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • October 11, 2012
    ...motive and intent to commit the murder and illuminated the relationship between the defendant and victim" ); Iqbal v. State, 805 N.E.2d 401, 408-409 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (holding that the evidence relating to a prior incident in which the defendant put a gun to the victim's head and threa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT