McKinstry v. State
| Decision Date | 26 January 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 71A03-9508-CR-273,71A03-9508-CR-273 |
| Citation | 660 N.E.2d 1052 |
| Parties | Ray McKINSTRY, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior Court, The Honorable Sanford Brook, Judge, Cause No. 71D069501CF00018.
Deborah K. Hays, Granger, for Appellant.
Pamela Carter, Attorney General, Preston W. Black, Deputy Attorney General, Office of Attorney General Indianapolis, for Appellee.
This appeal presents the question of whether a criminal defendant's false alibi statements may be admitted as part of the state's case in chief since the adoption of the Indiana Rules of Evidence. We hold that, depending upon the circumstances of the defendant's utterance, such statements may be found relevant and are admissible within the trial court's discretion.
We begin by reviewing the facts. On January 12, 1995, Ray McKinstry went to a Subway sandwich shop in South Bend and filled out an employment application. The manager, Penny Collier, scheduled an interview with McKinstry for the following morning.
Later that evening Collier's husband, Rollie, was working alone in the shop. About 11:00 p.m. the shop was robbed by a man wearing a mask that covered his mouth and the end of his nose. Rollie reported the robbery to the police, who searched for the robber without success. When Rollie described the robber to Penny, she felt the description "kind of fit" McKinstry. Arrangements were then made for undercover officers to wait outside the Subway the following morning during McKinstry's employment interview.
The next morning McKinstry appeared for the interview. At first Rollie was unable to see the front of McKinstry's face or hear his voice and he signaled the police that he was unsure whether McKinstry was the robber. McKinstry turned around, looked at Rollie and said that he looked familiar. Rollie was then standing about five feet from McKinstry. When he saw McKinstry's entire face and heard his voice, he realized McKinstry was the robber.
The police entered and Officer Kuhny told McKinstry that he wanted to talk to him about the robbery the night before. McKinstry spontaneously stated that he had been with his mother at a nursing home the night before.
McKinstry was taken to the police station, was read Miranda warnings and agreed to speak with the police about the robbery. In response to questioning, McKinstry stated that on the night of the robbery he visited his mother at a nursing home (subsequently identified as the Transitional Health Care Center) from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.; that he then went to his father's house and watched television; that he returned to the nursing home from 10:00 p.m. until 11:00 p.m.; that he then drove around until 5:00 a.m.; and that he "got hung up on a log" and damaged his vehicle. When asked what he had watched on television, McKinstry did not answer. Subsequent investigation revealed that McKinstry was not at the nursing home at the time of the robbery and that his vehicle was not damaged. Additionally, officers recovered a pair of gloves from McKinstry which Rollie identified as like those worn by the robber. During direct examination Rollie identified McKinstry as the robber.
As a part of the state's case-in-chief, and over defense objection, the state was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sutton v. State Of Ind.
...(holding that defendant's attempt to conceal incriminating evidence was admissible to show consciousness of guilt); McKinstry v. State, 660 N.E.2d 1052 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (holding that defendant's false alibi was admissible to show consciousness of guilt); Jorgensen v. State, 567 N.E.2d 1......
-
Robinson v. State
...(holding that defendant's attempt to conceal incriminating evidence was admissible to show consciousness of guilt); McKinstry v. State, 660 N.E.2d 1052 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (holding that defendant's false alibi was admissible to show consciousness of guilt); Jorgensen v. State, 567 N.E.2d 113 ......
-
Williams v. State
...Attempts to fabricate an alibi may be considered evidence of consciousness of guilt on the part of the accused. McKinstry v. State, 660 N.E.2d 1052, 1053 (Ind.Ct.App.1996). The recorded phone conversations also reveal Emous's and Williams's concern that his DNA would be found at Bartenbach'......