Edwards v. State
| Decision Date | 12 December 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 1084S394,1084S394 |
| Citation | 500 N.E.2d 1209 |
| Parties | Brady EDWARDS and Ronnie Edwards, Appellants, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender, June D. Oldham, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellants.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., John D. Shuman, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
A jury trial resulted in the conviction of appellants on two counts each of Child Molesting, a Class B felony. Ronnie Edwards was sentenced to two terms of twelve (12) years to be served concurrently. Brady Edwards was sentenced to two terms of ten (10) years to be served concurrently.
The victim testified that during the summer of 1982, when she was ten years of age, she had sexual intercourse and committed fellatio at various times with each of the appellants. Because of her age, she was allowed to demonstrate her testimony with anatomically correct dolls. The victim's six-year-old brother testified that appellant Ronnie Edwards attempted to have sexual relations with another sister younger than the victim and that he attempted to get the witness to perform fellatio upon him.
Appellants claim the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to sustain their convictions. They recognize that this Court will not weigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. McAfee v. State (1984), Ind., 459 N.E.2d 1186. They further cite the case of Liston v. State (1969), 252 Ind. 502, 250 N.E.2d 739, for the proposition that this Court will thoroughly probe and sift the evidence most favorable to the State to determine if there are sufficient facts of probative value to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Given these well established rules of law, appellants argue that the testimony of the victim was unresponsive, contradictory and at points exculpatory of appellants. When the testimony of the victim is examined in its entirety, there is no question that her age, eleven years at the time, and her limited knowledge of human anatomy caused her testimony to be unresponsive and at times contradictory. In spite of the great difficulty experienced by the prosecutor in eliciting her testimony, she nevertheless made unequivocal statements that each appellant put his penis into her vagina and that each appellant put his penis into her mouth. This alone presents enough evidence to support the verdict of the jury.
Appellants claim the trial court erred in admitting an edited tape and transcript of a prior interview with the victim. It is appellants' position that this tape and transcript are hearsay and as such should not have been allowed. The tape and transcript are allowable for two reasons. First, out-of-court declarations of a witness are not objectionable hearsay and are admissible as substantive evidence if the witness also testifies and is available for in-court cross-examination. Patterson v. State (1975), 263 Ind. 55, 324 N.E.2d 482. Such out-of-court declarations cannot be used as a substitute for available in-court testimony. Samuels v. State (1978), 267 Ind. 676, 372 N.E.2d 1186. However, the tape and transcript were not used as a substitute for in-court testimony, but rather were a reiteration of the testimony which the witness stated directly from the witness stand.
The tape and transcript were also admissible at the discretion of the trial court due to the tender age and minimal understanding of the witness. A witness may be treated in much the same manner as a hostile witness if the peculiar circumstances attending the examination, such as the age, the lack of understanding or the demeanor of the witness, so indicate. Brown v. State (1939), 216 Ind. 106, 23 N.E.2d 267. This includes what would be considered cross-examination in the ordinary sense. In cross-examination, a witness may be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watkins v. State
...S.Ct. 1895, 77 L.Ed.2d 284. Out-of-court declarations cannot be used as a substitute for available in-court testimony. Edwards v. State (1986), Ind., 500 N.E.2d 1209, 1211. At some point, the State must put the declarant of the prior statement on the witness stand and elicit direct testimon......
-
Traver v. State
...understanding, the trial court properly admitted the videotape. Wyrick v. State (1989), Ind., 533 N.E.2d 118, 120; Edwards v. State (1986), Ind., 500 N.E.2d 1209, 1211. On the other hand, J.T.'s in-court testimony is much less detailed than that of A.G. She testified on the stand that she d......
-
Murriel v. State, 57684
...prejudicial. See e.g., State v. Ball, 733 S.W.2d 499 (Mo.Ct.App.1987) (13-year-old victim allowed to demonstrate sex act); Edwards v. State, 500 N.E.2d 1209 (Ind.1986) (10-year-old girl allowed to demonstrate intercourse and fellatio); Commonwealth v. Reid, 400 Mass. 534, 511 N.E.2d 331 (19......
-
Stephens v. State
...evidence of probative value from which the trier of fact might reasonably infer guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Edwards v. State (1986), Ind., 500 N.E.2d 1209, 1211; McNeely v. State (1988), Ind.App., 529 N.E.2d 1317, 1327. In the case at bar, A.S. testified that she was molested three tim......