Amburn v. State, 23A01-8903-CR-74
| Decision Date | 25 January 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 23A01-8903-CR-74,23A01-8903-CR-74 |
| Parties | Richard R. AMBURN, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Mark A. Greenwell, Newport, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. and Amy Schaeffer Good, Deputy Atty. Gen., Office of Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
The State has petitioned for rehearing in this cause and upon consideration of that petition we conclude that the prior opinion, handed down on November 15, 1989, is in error and should be set aside and held for naught. We affirm the defendant-appellant Amburn's conviction for the reasons stated below.
The evidence favoring the verdict showed that Amburn, a school bus driver, was en route to a high school basketball game with the victim, thirteen-year-old A.D. as his only passenger. A.D. had asked Amburn to take her back to the school when it appeared that A.D.'s mother had not yet arrived home to take A.D. Amburn stopped at his house, telling A.D. he needed to change clothes before the game.
Before going inside, Amburn asked A.D. whether she would prefer to wait inside the house, since it was cold outside and he had turned the ignition off. A.D. declined, saying she would study on the bus until he returned. After Amburn walked to the back of the bus to pick up trash, he returned to the front, where A.D. was seated, and asked her again if she wanted to come inside the house. Again she said no. Then Amburn, still turned toward A.D., but looking toward his house, touched A.D. on the area just above her breasts. He withdrew his hand momentarily, then put his hand on her right breast and squeezed hard. Amburn touched A.D. outside her shirt but inside the windbreaker-type jacket she was wearing. Neither Amburn nor A.D. said anything during the event, and after touching A.D. the second time, Amburn exited the bus and went inside to change clothes. When he returned to the bus, nothing was said about the occurrence, and Amburn drove A.D. to school without further incident.
The admission at trial of testimony regarding Amburn's prior sexual misconduct is the only error on which this appeal is based.
The questioned evidence was the testimony of three women who related that Amburn had suddenly touched them on the breast or in the area of the crotch, in the same fleeting manner which characterized Amburn's touching of A.D. C.H. was twenty-two and married when Amburn, who worked with C.H.'s husband, came to her house, struck up a conversation, then while talking suddenly squeezed her breast. He commented "that felt nice" and asked her 5 times to kiss him. C.H. declined and Amburn left the house.
Y.D. was aged 16 and married when Amburn and a companion stopped their car to help Y.D. start her stalled truck. Y.D. was acquainted with Amburn and recognized him. While Amburn's companion was looking under the hood, Amburn reached into the truck where Y.D. sat and thrust his hand inside Y.D.'s halter top, and with his other hand, felt her crotch area. Amburn J.B., age 16 at the time of the incident was a family babysitter. Amburn was driving her to the house to watch his children for the evening when he began...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schick v. State
...had been committed, we observe that as a general rule error invited by the complaining party is not reversible error. Amburn v. State (1990), Ind.App., 550 N.E.2d 762, 764.12 In Mitchell, our supreme court held a conviction for robbery resulting in serious bodily injury must be reduced to c......
-
Kingery v. State
...is not reversible error. Berry v. State (1991), Ind.App., 574 N.E.2d 960, 963, reh. denied, trans. denied, citing Amburn v. State (1990), Ind.App., 550 N.E.2d 762, 764. Invited errors are not subject to appellate review. Heiser v. State (1992), Ind.App., 596 N.E.2d 965, 966, reh. denied. Th......
-
Pruitt v. State
...to the jury. Appellant cannot now complain that these instructions are not complete because they were tendered by him. Amburn v. State (1990), Ind.App., 550 N.E.2d 762. Nor can appellant now argue that the other instructions given by the court were incomplete when he did not tender a more c......
-
Berry v. State, 82A01-9012-CR-480
...rely on such error as a reason for reversal, because error invited by the complaining party is not reversible error. Amburn v. State (1990), Ind.App., 550 N.E.2d 762, 764, Stolberg v. Stolberg (1989), Ind.App., 538 N.E.2d 1, 5. Such invited errors are not subject to review by this court. Id......