Caldwell v. State

Decision Date31 August 2015
Docket NumberNo. 22A01–1411–CR–479.,22A01–1411–CR–479.
Citation43 N.E.3d 258
PartiesAnthony Lamar CALDWELL, Appellant–Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

Matthew J. McGovern, Anderson, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Monika Prekopa Talbot, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

VAIDIK

, Chief Judge.

Case Summary

[1] Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b)

provides that evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person's character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character. However, the evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving identity. The identity exception was crafted primarily for “signature” crimes with a common modus operandi. The exception's rationale is that the crimes, or the means used to commit them, are so similar and unique that it is highly probable that the same person committed all of them. Crimes that are only “generally similar” do not qualify under this exception; rather, the crimes must be “strikingly similar.”

[2] Anthony Lamar Caldwell was charged with Class A felony burglary and Class A felony attempted rape for breaking into a woman's house, badly beating her, and attempting to rape her. At trial, the State introduced evidence that Caldwell looked in the window at another woman's house—which was in the same neighborhood—fifty-seven days later. The trial court admitted this evidence under the identity exception in Evidence Rule 404(b)

because it found that the second crime was “sufficiently similar” to the first crime and the crimes demonstrated Caldwell's “signature.” The jury found Caldwell guilty as charged, and the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 100 years.

[3] Although there are general similarities between the crimes, we find that the similarities are not striking, primarily because the second incident did not involve an entry into the woman's house or a sexual assault. Because they are not signature crimes, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of the second crime. Nevertheless, we find that the error is harmless in light of the fact that Caldwell's DNA was found at the scene of the first crime and the jury was admonished to consider the second crime for identification purposes only. In addition, because the enhancements to Caldwell's burglary and attempted-rape convictions violate the common-law prohibition against double jeopardy, we reduce Caldwell's burglary conviction from a Class A felony to a Class B felony, thereby resulting in a new aggregate sentence of seventy years.

Facts and Procedural History

[4] On July 21, 2003, fifty-six-year-old L.C. lived alone at 1770 Lynwood Drive in New Albany, Indiana. That night, L.C. went to bed around 9:45 p.m. Her laundry-room window, which did not have a screen, was closed at the time. While she was in bed, L.C. heard a noise coming from the laundry room. L.C. got out of bed, put on her robe, and walked down the hall, turning on the light. As L.C. rounded the corner into the living room, a man stepped out and grabbed her. According to L.C., the man wore a light-blue t-shirt, a brown belt, and blue jeans; was about 5'10? to 6' tall; weighed about 175 pounds; and was about twenty-five to thirty years old. However, L.C. was unable to see the man's face or ascertain his race, and she was never able to identify him. Tr. p. 525, 527–28, 537, 547.

[5] After the man grabbed L.C., he pulled her robe over her head and started pushing her back toward the bedroom. During this process, the man hit L.C. in the face with his fists. When L.C. tried to cover her face with her hands and screamed, the man hit her harder. He also ripped off her underwear. Once they got to the base of the bed in L.C.'s bedroom, the man hit her so hard that she briefly lost consciousness and fell to the floor. The next thing L.C. remembered was the man putting a bed pillow over her face. L.C., who thought she was going to die, struggled to push the pillow away. When the man touched the outside of L.C.'s vagina with his hand, she exclaimed, “Jesus, Jesus.” Id. at 132. The man then abruptly ended the attack and left.

[6] L.C. called 911 at 10:14 p.m. An ambulance took L.C. to Floyd Memorial Hospital, where she was hospitalized for two days. She had a broken eye socket, a laceration below her right eye, and broken bones in her left hand and fingers. She also had significant bruising and swelling in her face. See State's Ex. 6, 7.

[7] Responding officers determined that the perpetrator had entered L.C.'s house through the laundry-room window. There were no other signs of forced entry. Officers discovered blood on the blinds covering the laundry-room window, and an evidence technician took a swab of the blood for DNA testing. Officers also discovered mud on the wall below the laundry-room window, blood on a bed pillow and the carpet, and torn underwear. Nothing had been taken from the house.

[8] Over four years later, in November 2007, the DNA from the blood on the laundry-room blinds matched Caldwell's profile in the National DNA Database. As a result of the match, in December 2007 the State charged Caldwell with Count I: Class A felony burglary (bodily injury) and Count II: Class A felony attempted rape (deadly force),1 and the trial court issued a warrant for his arrest. Caldwell, however, was not arrested until six years later in December 2013. See Appellant's App. p. 2.

[9] Before trial, the State filed a notice of intent to present evidence regarding [a] traffic stop of Anthony Caldwell on September 17, 2003 [ [2 ] at or near 3309 Mellwood Avenue, New Albany, Indiana and investigation into Caldwell attempting to look into a window at 3309 Mellwood Avenue.” Id. at 40. The State claimed that this evidence was admissible under the identity exception in Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b)

. Caldwell filed a motion in limine, seeking to exclude, among other things, [a]ny discussion of the traffic stop on September 17, 2003 involving [him].” Id. at 53. A hearing was held, and the parties discussed the events leading up to the traffic stop. Specifically, fifty-seven days after the break-in and attempted rape at L.C.'s house, sixty-year-old J.H. reported to the police at 11:06 p.m. that when she was home alone at 3309 Mellwood Avenue, a black male was in her backyard looking in her window but left when she turned on the lights. See Tr. p. 70–97. J.H. lived approximately twelve or thirteen houses from L.C. Minutes after the report, the police pulled over Caldwell, who was driving away from the area at “a fairly accelerated speed,” for an expired license plate. Id. at 584. The police noticed that Caldwell was sweating, the bottom of his pant legs were wet, and although he was wearing dry shoes, he had a pair of wet shoes covered in grass clippings in the backseat of his car. Caldwell told the police that he was in the area visiting a female friend, who lived at University Woods apartments. Although Caldwell's route did not make sense to the police, they contacted the female, who confirmed that Caldwell had recently been staying with her and that they were romantically involved. The police took an audiotaped statement from Caldwell on the scene, during which Caldwell explained that he was initially wearing tennis shoes but later changed into different shoes after he cut through a yard and park while visiting his female friend. Caldwell was not arrested for the peeping incident at J.H.'s house and was allowed to leave. Because Caldwell's car was towed due to the expired license plate, he left the scene on foot in the direction of University Woods.

[10] On the first day of trial, the trial court ruled that the September 17, 2003 incident was admissible. The court reasoned:

[J.H.'s] home is twelve (12) to thirteen (13) houses over from the victim in our instant case, [L.C.'s] home. The homes are in very close proximity, about a block or block and a half away from each other. [T]he traffic stop incident or the peeping incident at [J.H.'s] home was fifty-seven (57) days after the attempted rape of [L.C.] and occurred at or near the same time in the evening. Both women were of similar age, fifty-six (56) to sixty (60). Both were Caucasian. Both were home alone. I find that to be a similar victim profile in this matter. The mode of entry into [L.C.'s] home was through a back window. The Defendant was seen looking into a back window of [J.H.'s] home and a ladder was found leaning up against a bedroom window. So I find there was a similar method of entry or peeping in the second matter.

Id. at 109. Based on these facts, the court concluded: “I find the specific features found in the uncharged event sufficiently similar, a type of signature plan unique and unusual in time, place and event to the charged crime that demonstrates a signature of this Defendant showing his modus operandi.” Id. at 110–11. And because L.C. could not identify her attacker, the court found that the probative value of this evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect. Id. at 111.

[11] During trial, the State, over Caldwell's objection, introduced evidence of the September 17, 2003 incident through two police officers. Before the first police officer, Detective Gregory Pennell, testified, the trial court admonished the jury that evidence of the September 17, 2003 incident could be used for identification purposes only and Caldwell was not on trial for that incident. Id. at 210. Detective Pennell then testified briefly about the September 17, 2003 incident. See id. at 210–12. And before the second police officer, Officer Shawn Kesling, testified, the court repeated the same admonishment to the jury. Id. at 576–77. Officer Kesling then testified in great depth about the September 17, 2003 incident. See id. at 578–644.

[12] The State also presented testimony from Joanna Johnson, a forensic DNA analyst with the Indiana...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Sheckles v. Warden
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • November 6, 2023
    ... ... profile discovered on a Newport cigarette- Sheckles's ... favored brand-found at the scene ... Sheckles v. State , 968 N.E.2d 870 (Table), 2012 WL ... 1933082, at *1-3 (Ind.Ct.App. May 29, 2012) (internal ... citations omitted). Sheckles was ... were not specifically related to Sheckles' case ... See IND. R. EVID. 403, 404(b); Caldwell v ... State , 43 N.E.3d 258, 264 (Ind.Ct.App. 2015) ...          The ... record thus reflects that Sheckles' attorneys ... ...
  • Skeens v. Warden
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • May 4, 2022
    ... ...          In ... deciding the petition, the court must presume the facts set ... forth by the state courts are correct, unless Mr. Skeens ... rebuts this presumption with clear and convincing evidence ... 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). On ... a prior bad act he committed unrelated to the issues in the ... case. See Ind. R. Evid. 403, 404(b); Caldwell v ... State , 43 N.E.3d 258, 264 (Ind.Ct.App. 2015). Even if ... the evidence was somehow admitted, it would have done nothing ... ...
  • Lothery v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • April 24, 2023
    ... ... was harmless. Not all errors in admitting evidence of other ... bad acts require reversal; rather, such errors are to be ... disregarded as harmless error unless they affect the ... substantial rights of the party. Caldwell v. State , ... 43 N.E.3d 258, 267 (Ind.Ct.App. 2015) (citing Lewis v ... State , 34 N.E.3d 240, 248 (Ind. 2015), trans ... denied ... In determining whether a party's substantial ... rights have been affected by erroneous admission of evidence, ... we consider the ... ...
  • Corbett v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • November 10, 2021
    ...identified him in court. These are both strong pieces of evidence that did not involve the alleged bad acts. See Caldwell v. State , 43 N.E.3d 258, 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (concluding the trial court's error in admitting evidence under Rule 404(b) was harmless "in light of the DNA evidence......
  • 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