Howell v. State, No. 380S71

Docket NºNo. 380S71
Citation274 Ind. 490, 413 N.E.2d 225
Case DateDecember 01, 1980
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 225

413 N.E.2d 225
274 Ind. 490
George HOWELL, Appellant (Defendant below),
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
No. 380S71.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Dec. 1, 1980.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 26, 1981.

William G. Smock, Terre Haute, for appellant.

[274 Ind. 491] Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Michael Gene Worden, Asst.Atty.Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

HUNTER, Justice.

The defendant, George Howell, was convicted by a jury of child molesting, a class B felony, Ind.Code § 35-42-4-3(a) (Burns 1979 Repl.), and criminal confinement, a class C felony, Ind.Code § 35-42-3-3(2) (Burns 1979 Repl.) (amended 1979). He was sentenced to twenty years for the class B felony and five years for the class C felony, the sentences to run concurrently. He now raises three issues in this direct appeal:

1. Whether the trial court erred in permitting the state to elicit testimony from witnesses concerning the fact that defendant had been accused of child molesting in the past;

2. Whether the trial court erred in allowing two witnesses for the state to testify that defendant told them he "thought" he had committed the crimes in question; and

3. Whether the trial court erred in giving certain instructions.

Page 226

The evidence most favorable to the state reveals that on the evening of August 17, 1978, the eight year old victim and her parents attended a CB club meeting in Terre Haute. The defendant and his family also attended. After the meeting, the defendant asked the victim's father if the victim could stay all night with defendant's daughter. It was agreed, and the victim went home with defendant and his family. Later that night, defendant told the victim that they had to go to her house and pick up some clothes. The two of them left in defendant's truck but instead of going to the victim's house, they went to a liquor store where defendant purchased some beer. They then proceeded down some back roads along the Wabash River and stopped next to an isolated field.

Defendant removed his clothes and those of the victim. They went into the field and lay on the ground where defendant placed his penis between the victim's legs and started "wiggling." They returned to the cab of the truck and defendant fell asleep. Out of fear, the victim remained in the truck with him. When defendant awoke the next morning, he forced the victim to perform oral sex. Afterwards, they drove back to defendant's house. Defendant told the victim not to tell anyone what had happened or else he would kill her. Eventually, the victim told her mother the truth, and defendant was arrested.

[274 Ind. 492] I.

Defendant first contends that the trial court erred in allowing two police officers to testify on direct examination during the state's case in chief that in the course of their investigation, defendant informed them that on several previous occasions he had been "accused" of child molesting in other communities and had been asked to leave those areas which he did. Although evidence of separate and distinct crimes is generally inadmissible as proof of a defendant's guilt, such evidence is admissible for the purpose of showing intent, motive, purpose, identification, or common scheme or plan. Henderson v. State, (1980) --- Ind. ---, 403 N.E.2d 1088; O'Conner v. State, (1980 ) --- Ind. ---, 399 N.E.2d 364. It is also competent to establish a depraved sexual instinct when sodomy or incest is charged. Daniels v. State, (1980) --- Ind. ---, 408 N.E.2d 1244; Cobbs v. State, (1975) 264 Ind. 60, 338 N.E.2d 632. See also Grey v. State, (1980) --- Ind. ---, 404 N.E.2d 1348 (admissible in a prosecution for rape of a child under the age of twelve years). The state maintains that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 practice notes
  • Davis v. State, No. 49S00-8705-CR-510
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • September 1, 1992
    ...where a determination of guilt is supported by overwhelming independent evidence. Staton, 524 N.E.2d 6, 9; Howell v. State (1981), 274 Ind. 490, 493, 413 N.E.2d 225, 226; Stevens v. State (1976), 265 Ind. 396, 408, 354 N.E.2d 727, As outlined in our discussion in Issue 1, the other evidence......
  • Camm v. State, No. 87S00-0612-CR-499.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 26, 2009
    ...is relevant only if the jury can reasonably conclude that the act occurred and that the defendant was the actor."); Howell v. State, 274 Ind. 490, 413 N.E.2d 225, 226 (1980) ("[I]t goes without saying that there must be evidence of probative value showing that the defendant actually engaged......
  • Lehiy v. State, No. 50A03-8601-CR-30
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • December 8, 1986
    ...The State argues that even if the evidence was erroneously admitted, the error was harmless, relying on Howell v. State (1980), 274 Ind. 490, 413 N.E.2d 225. However, the present case is not comparable to Howell. In Howell the evidence admitted was an admission by the defendant to police as......
  • Sweet v. State, No. 784S268
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • October 14, 1986
    ...is admissible where it tends to prove intent, motive, purpose, identification, or common scheme or plan. Howell v. State (1980), Ind. , 413 N.E.2d 225; Henderson v. State (1980), Ind. , 403 N.E.2d 1088. This Court has held admission of evidence of a defendant's prior drug dealings to show a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
26 cases
  • Davis v. State, No. 49S00-8705-CR-510
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • September 1, 1992
    ...where a determination of guilt is supported by overwhelming independent evidence. Staton, 524 N.E.2d 6, 9; Howell v. State (1981), 274 Ind. 490, 493, 413 N.E.2d 225, 226; Stevens v. State (1976), 265 Ind. 396, 408, 354 N.E.2d 727, As outlined in our discussion in Issue 1, the other evidence......
  • Camm v. State, No. 87S00-0612-CR-499.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 26, 2009
    ...is relevant only if the jury can reasonably conclude that the act occurred and that the defendant was the actor."); Howell v. State, 274 Ind. 490, 413 N.E.2d 225, 226 (1980) ("[I]t goes without saying that there must be evidence of probative value showing that the defendant actually engaged......
  • Lehiy v. State, No. 50A03-8601-CR-30
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • December 8, 1986
    ...The State argues that even if the evidence was erroneously admitted, the error was harmless, relying on Howell v. State (1980), 274 Ind. 490, 413 N.E.2d 225. However, the present case is not comparable to Howell. In Howell the evidence admitted was an admission by the defendant to police as......
  • Sweet v. State, No. 784S268
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • October 14, 1986
    ...is admissible where it tends to prove intent, motive, purpose, identification, or common scheme or plan. Howell v. State (1980), Ind. , 413 N.E.2d 225; Henderson v. State (1980), Ind. , 403 N.E.2d 1088. This Court has held admission of evidence of a defendant's prior drug dealings to show a......
  • 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