Brown v. State
| Decision Date | 20 February 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 1079S288,1079S288 |
| Citation | 416 N.E.2d 828,275 Ind. 227 |
| Parties | Roy Milton BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Merle B. Rose, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Frank A. Baldwin, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
This is a direct appeal from a conviction for confinement, Ind.Code § 35-42-3-3, and criminal deviate conduct, Ind.Code § 35-42-4-2(b). Trial resulted in conviction on both charges. Appellant was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment on the first charge, and thirty years' imprisonment on the second charge, the sentences to be served concurrently.
Appellant seeks a reversal and a new trial based on four issues. The evidence most favorable to the State reveals that late in the night of August 29, 1978, appellant approached L.D., put a knife to her neck, told her he would kill her if she screamed, and ordered her to get into her car. Continuing to brandish the knife appellant ordered L.D. to remove her clothes, committed sexual acts upon her and forced her to commit oral sodomy on him. When another car approached his, appellant began choking L.D., ordering her to stay down. When L.D. tried to escape, appellant again pulled the knife and threatened to kill her. They struggled over the knife, appellant bit L.D. on the leg, threw her out of the car, and drove off.
Appellant first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in two respects.
First, he argues that there was no specific evidence proving the time of the commission of the crime, citing the conflict between the date set out in the information August 29, 1978 and the date referred to by the prosecutor during trial August 30, 1978. Claiming that the prosecutrix never pin-pointed the date of the crime, appellant argues that the time of the crime should not be assumed to be that set out in the information.
In failing to establish the date, the State has failed to sustain its burden of proving the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, appellant claims.
L.D. testified that she was abducted between 11:00 p. m. and 11:30 p. m. on August 29, 1978, and that she was thrown out of the car about one hour later. Any conflict as to the date of the crime relates to its having continued from August 29 to August 30.
Second, appellant claims that the evidence was insufficient on the issue of identity because he has a severe stutter and L.D. noticed no speech defect in her attacker. There was evidence by defense witnesses that appellant could not utter a simple phrase without stuttering, and the transcript of appellant's trial testimony shows that he stuttered constantly except when he was required to answer with a simple "yes" or "no".
The jury also heard witnesses who testified that appellant did not stutter, or stuttered only under stress. There was evidence from which the jury could have concluded that the appellant did not always stutter. Taken with other evidence on the issue of identity, this evidence could have led the jury to conclude that appellant committed the acts charged.
The evidence was not insufficient on either basis presented.
Appellant next claims that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of a similar crime, committed while he was in jail, which tended to prove that someone else had committed the crime charged.
Proof of separate and distinct crimes not charged are generally inadmissible, but may become admissible if relevant to prove intent, motive, purpose, identity, or common plan or scheme. Bruce v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 180, 375 N.E.2d 1042. Since identity was an issue here, appellant argues that evidence of the other crime was admissible to disprove the element of identity. The similar modus operandi of the two crimes tended to prove, appellant also claims, that the unknown perpetrator of the other crime committed the crime with which appellant was charged. The State argues that the two crimes were so dissimilar that the rule on admissibility did not apply.
The rule governing the admissibility of evidence of a defendant's other crimes to prove the commission of a crime for which he is being tried insures the relevance and the minimization of prejudice of such evidence. Here the possibility of prejudice to the accused is not present, and therefore reliance on this rule is misplaced. We are concerned here only with the legal relevance of evidence of crimes committed by others, offered to disprove the element of identity in the crime charged.
"It is generally held that the evidence to establish that someone else, and not accused, is the guilty party must be such evidence as is relevant on the trial of the accused person, and that the evidence offered by accused as to the commission of the crime by another person must be limited to such facts as are inconsistent with his own guilt, and to such facts as raise a reasonable inference or presumption as to his own innocence.
The evidence, to be admissible, must be such proof as directly connects the other person with the corpus delicti, and tends clearly to point out someone besides accused as the guilty person. Disconnected and remote acts, outside the crime itself cannot be separately proved for such purpose; and evidence which can have no other effect than to cast a bare suspicion on another, or to raise a conjectural inference as to the commission of the crime by another, is not admissible." 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 622 (1961).
In Fortson v. State, (1978), 269 Ind. 161, 379 N.E.2d 147, a defendant attempted to introduce evidence showing that two others may have committed the crime of which he was accused based on their previous joint criminal activity. This Court held that the trial court properly refused to admit this evidence because it was irrelevant. We said:
269 Ind. at 171, 379 N.E.2d at 153.
In this case, the proffered evidence in no way directly connected the unknown perpetrator with the corpus delicti of the offense charged. It did no more than raise a bare suspicion that some other person may have committed the crime of which appellant was accused. The evidence was properly excludable as irrelevant.
Appellant next claims that the trial court erred in refusing appellant's tendered instructions and in giving an instruction over appellant's objection.
The first claim is based on the following tendered instructions:
"Defendant's Tendered Instruction No. 1
To this charge the defendant has entered a plea of NOT GUILTY, and the burden is upon the State of Indiana to prove to each juror beyond a reasonable doubt every material allegation of the crime(s) charged, or of any offense which is included within the crime(s) charged, before there may be a conviction. The following may be included under the crime(s) charged: Count I Battery, Recklessness, Attempted Confinement.
The definitions and material elements of all crime(s) charged and included will be stated in other instructions.
To this charge the defendant has entered a plea of NOT GUILTY, and the burden is upon the State of Indiana to prove to each juror beyond a reasonable doubt every material allegation of the crime(s) charged, or of any offense which is included within the crime(s) charged, before there may be a conviction. The following may be included under the crime(s) charged: Count II Attempted Criminal Deviate Conduct, Battery and Recklessness.
The definitions and material elements of all crime(s) charged and included will be stated in other instructions.
A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally performs an act that creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person commits criminal recklessness, a Class B Misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class A Misdemeanor if the conduct includes the use of a vehicle or deadly weapon.
A person who knowingly or intentionally touches another person in a rude, insolent, or angry manner commits battery, a Class B Misdemeanor. However, the offense is:
(1) A Class A Misdemeanor if it results in bodily injury to any other person, or if it is committed against a law enforcement officer or against a person summoned...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flurry v. State
...premises); Scrivener v. State, 441 N.E.2d 954 (Ind.1982) (No error where defendant asserted an alibi defense); Brown v. State, 275 Ind. 227, 416 N.E.2d 828 (1981) (No error where defendant steadfastly maintained he was in no way involved in the attack); State v. Alston, 293 N.C. 553, 238 S.......
-
State v. Scheidell
...States v. Stevens, 935 F.2d 1380, 1404-05 (3rd Cir.1991), People v. Bueno, 626 P.2d 1167, 1169-70 (Colo.App.1981), Brown v. State, 275 Ind. 227, 416 N.E.2d 828, 830 (1981), Commonwealth v. Jewett, 392 Mass. 558, 467 N.E.2d 155, 158 (1984). While others have not. See e.g., United States v. P......
-
State v. Hernandez, 14168
...to raise a bare suspicion that some other person may have committed the crime of which the defendant is accused. Brown v. State, 275 Ind. 227, 231, 416 N.E.2d 828 (1981)." State v. Echols, The rules of relevancy govern both the initial presentation of third party culpability evidence, and t......
-
State v. Echols, 12716
...to raise a bare suspicion that some other person may have committed the crime of which the defendant is accused. Brown v. State, 275 Ind. 227, 231, 416 N.E.2d 828 (1981). The presentation and admissibility of such evidence is governed by the rules of relevancy. See State v. Burge, supra; St......