Hobbs v. State
| Decision Date | 02 January 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 1185,1185 |
| Parties | Bennett James HOBBS, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. S 447. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
William S. Suarez, Portage, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Louis E. Ransdell, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Appellant's first jury trial resulted in his conviction of murder, for which he received a sentence of fifty (50) years. On direct appeal, this Court reversed his conviction and ordered a new trial due to the improper admission of evidence regarding appellant's prior criminal activity which did not tend to show a common scheme or plan. Hobbs v. State (1984), Ind., 466 N.E.2d 729. Upon retrial, a jury found appellant to be guilty of Felony Murder, for which he received a sentence of fifty (50) years.
The facts are: In early January of 1981, appellant talked with his friend Terry Keeler about burglarizing the home of Lloyd Faure. Keeler testified that appellant told him he would be the lookout.
On the evening of January 6, 1981, Keeler drove to the area of the victim's home and stood as the lookout while the home was burglarized. Keeler saw appellant and other men at the scene. After some time, appellant's confederate Joe Hernandez came out of the house and told Keeler they needed to get out of there. Keeler then saw appellant and Hernandez leave the scene in another vehicle.
The next day appellant and Hernandez visited Keeler and told him to get rid of the car he drove to the burglary. Before Keeler dumped the car in a farmer's field, appellant and Hernandez threw inside it a bank book, some computer print-out sheets, and a legal envelope. The three men later met at a bar and talked about the burglary. Hernandez said that when they left the scene, the man was not breathing and that appellant had "really fucked up" this time. Later, appellant gave Keeler a ring and a bracelet and told him they were from the burglary. He also told him to keep his mouth shut.
On January 7, 1981, Faure's neighbor became concerned because he did not answer his telephone. She walked over to his home and found his body in the garage. It was determined that Faure died from a skull fracture and hemorrhaging into the brain, most likely caused by a blow to his head.
It was subsequently learned that some stereo equipment, a coin collection, and two television sets were missing from his home.
Appellant argues the trial court erred in limiting the scope of his cross-examination of Keeler. Keeler had given several statements to police before appellant's first trial, each providing additional information. Before appellant's second trial, Keeler gave police more information concerning who was involved in the burglary and to whom the stolen property was sold after the burglary. The State's motion in limine concerning the disposition of the stolen property was granted on the basis that Keeler had no personal knowledge about what was taken from the Faure home, and evidence concerning the disposal of the property nearly three weeks after the burglary occurred was irrelevant to appellant's felony-murder charge and was not likely to lead to admissible evidence.
During appellant's cross-examination of Keeler, the trial court sustained the State's objection to questioning regarding the sale of the property on the ground that it was irrelevant and immaterial. Appellant asserts that he was prepared to impeach Keeler by producing witnesses who would contradict Keeler's story concerning the sale of the property. He claims he was denied a fair trial by the motion in limine and limitation of cross-examination because he was prohibited from impeaching Keeler's credibility.
Whether to permit cross-examination to test the credibility of a witness is within the trial court's discretion, and we will find reversible error only where there is an abuse of discretion. Huffman v. State (1989), Ind., 543 N.E.2d 360. The trial court has wide latitude in ruling on the admissibility of the evidence and in determining its relevancy. Smith v. State (1984), Ind., 465 N.E.2d 702. Collateral matters cannot be made the basis for impeachment. Smith v. State (1983), Ind., 455 N.E.2d 346. We agree with the trial court that the disposition of the stolen goods three weeks after the burglary and murder was not relevant to appellant's charges. We find no error.
Appellant contends that reversible error occurred when the trial court failed to order Keeler to answer certain questions which were posed to him during his deposition taken prior to appellant's second trial. Keeler's attorney objected to questions concerning the disposition of the stolen property and Keeler asserted his Fifth Amendment right and refused to answer the questions. Appellant certified these questions to the trial court, but the trial court sustained the objections to the questions for the same reasons that the State's motion in limine was granted as discussed above. Appellant asserts that Keeler should have been forced to answer the questions because they reflected on his credibility as a witness.
We stated above that the disposition of the stolen property was a collateral matter and not a proper subject for impeachment. Therefore, we find the trial court did not err in sustaining the objections to the questions and refusing to order Keeler to answer them. Id.
Appellant argues that the testimony of a co-inmate concerning appellant's statements should not have been admitted because he was not advised of his Miranda rights before he made the statements.
Dennis Sullivan shared a cell block with appellant. During a shake-down of their cell block, Detective Weeks of the Porter County Jail found a letter written by Sullivan to Keeler in which Sullivan threatened Keeler and called him a snitch. Weeks told Sullivan that he could be charged with tampering with a witness and asked him whether he was involved in the Faure murder, and he said no. At the end of their conversation, Weeks asked Sullivan whether he could jot down anything he heard about the case. Sullivan testified that he had no agreement with Weeks or the State concerning his willingness to take notes or testify in exchange for a more-favorable sentence. He testified that Weeks did not tell him to go to appellant and try to get information about the case, but instead asked that if he heard anything, would he jot it down. He also stated that he did not fear a charge of threatening a witness because his attorney told him that no charge could be brought because Keeler never received the letter.
Sullivan testified that while sharing a cell block, he and appellant talked about the difference between the possible sentences for a murder charge and a manslaughter charge. At that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bellmore v. State
...for failure to specify this ground as a basis for his objection at trial. Dickerson v. State (1986), Ind., 488 N.E.2d 346; Hobbs v. State (1990), Ind., 548 N.E.2d 164; Lewis v. State (1987), Ind., 511 N.E.2d Citing the State's display of the victim's photograph during voir dire and penalty ......
-
Timberlake v. State
...were made. The trial court is accorded wide discretion in ruling on the admissibility and relevance of evidence. Hobbs v. State, 548 N.E.2d 164, 166 (Ind.1990). We review a trial court's evidentiary decision for an abuse of discretion and will only reverse "where the decision is clearly aga......
-
Dobbins v. State
...consistently held that the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness is sufficient to sustain a murder conviction. Hobbs v. State, 548 N.E.2d 164, 168 (Ind.1990); Moffatt v. State, 542 N.E.2d 971, 975 The facts most favorable to the verdict reveal that two witnesses observed Defendant ch......
-
Shaffer v. State, 67A01-9601-CR-12
...trial irregularities standing alone do not amount to error, they cannot together gain the stature of reversible error. Hobbs v. State, 548 N.E.2d 164, 168 (Ind.1990). Here, Shaffer has not demonstrated that he was prejudiced by his counsel's alleged errors. Thus, there has not been an accum......