Otto v. State, No. 2-876A298
| Docket Nº | No. 2-876A298 |
| Citation | 398 N.E.2d 716 |
| Case Date | January 14, 1980 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Page 716
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
Robert W. Hammerle, Indianapolis, for appellant-defendant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Charles D. Rodgers, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee-plaintiff.
Page 717
CHIPMAN, Judge.
Pursuant to a search warrant, five officers of the Indianapolis Police Department conducted a raid on a residence located at 6437 East 82nd Street in Indianapolis. When the officers arrived they saw two men, Joseph Bobo and appellant Fred Otto, sitting on a couch in front of a picture window. Upon noticing the officers the men ran toward the back of the house. Otto was apprehended on the back porch and returned to the living room. Officer Flowers read him his rights and questioned him concerning the contents of a bottle which was on a coffee table in front of the couch. Otto replied the bottle contained liquid opium and that it belonged to Bobo.
Officer Flowers testified Otto gave his address as 6437 East 82nd Street and that shortly before Otto was taken to police headquarters he retrieved a shirt and shoes from a closet. Otto admits retrieving his shoes from an alcove in the hallway but denies getting a shirt. He testified he was merely visiting Bobo and that he had taken off his shoes and placed them in the alcove to prevent Bobo's dog from playing with them. Otto vehemently denied telling Officer Flowers he lived at the residence; he testified he rented a room from Felicia Kemper at 4615 Boulevard Place at the time of his arrest.
Following a jury trial Otto was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and sentenced to a determinate prison term of ten years.
The sole issue we address concerns the State's cross-examination of Otto's witness, Felicia Kemper. Under questioning by the State Ms. Kemper was forced to admit dangerous drugs had been seized from her residence at 4615 Boulevard Place during a raid on January 20, 1976. Although she was not arrested as a result of the incident the State admitted the question was designed to test her credibility. The Attorney General's brief argues the question was proper as it did not inquire about past convictions, only the fact of the drug raid. We could not disagree more.
The basis for our disagreement is two-fold. First, it has long been the law of this state that a witness may not be impeached by extraneous acts of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Graham v. State, No. 2-984A274
...prejudiced their rights citing Cox v. State (1981), Ind.App., 422 N.E.2d 357, trans. denied, and Otto v. State (1980), Ind.App., 398 N.E.2d 716, trans. denied. The Grahams have failed to make any cogent argument which specifically explains how these alleged errors resulted in significant pr......
-
Plan-Tec, Inc. v. Wiggins, PLAN-TE
...a witness's credibility. Ashton v. Anderson, (1972) 258 Ind. 51, 62-63, 279 N.E.2d 210, 216-17; Otto v. State, (1980) Ind.App., 398 N.E.2d 716, 717, trans. denied. Both burglary, Ashton, and theft, Geisleman v. State, (1980) Ind., 410 N.E.2d 1293, 1296, are among those crimes for which prio......
-
Hurst v. State, 4-983A311
...had a prejudicial impact on the jury's deliberations. Williams v. State, (1981) Ind., 426 N.E.2d 662; Otto v. State, (1980) Ind.App., 398 N.E.2d 716. In light of the overwhelming evidence of Hurst's guilt presented at trial, we cannot say that error in the admission of this evidence was any......
-
Johnson v. State, No. 2-980A306
...by proof of particular acts of misconduct which have not been the basis for conviction. Morris supra; Otto v. State (1980), Ind.App., 398 N.E.2d 716. Here, however, the trial court struck the inadmissible testimony and admonished the jurors to disregard it. It is well settled that an admoni......
-
Graham v. State, No. 2-984A274
...prejudiced their rights citing Cox v. State (1981), Ind.App., 422 N.E.2d 357, trans. denied, and Otto v. State (1980), Ind.App., 398 N.E.2d 716, trans. denied. The Grahams have failed to make any cogent argument which specifically explains how these alleged errors resulted in significant pr......
-
Plan-Tec, Inc. v. Wiggins, PLAN-TE
...a witness's credibility. Ashton v. Anderson, (1972) 258 Ind. 51, 62-63, 279 N.E.2d 210, 216-17; Otto v. State, (1980) Ind.App., 398 N.E.2d 716, 717, trans. denied. Both burglary, Ashton, and theft, Geisleman v. State, (1980) Ind., 410 N.E.2d 1293, 1296, are among those crimes for which prio......
-
Hurst v. State, 4-983A311
...had a prejudicial impact on the jury's deliberations. Williams v. State, (1981) Ind., 426 N.E.2d 662; Otto v. State, (1980) Ind.App., 398 N.E.2d 716. In light of the overwhelming evidence of Hurst's guilt presented at trial, we cannot say that error in the admission of this evidence was any......
-
Johnson v. State, No. 2-980A306
...by proof of particular acts of misconduct which have not been the basis for conviction. Morris supra; Otto v. State (1980), Ind.App., 398 N.E.2d 716. Here, however, the trial court struck the inadmissible testimony and admonished the jurors to disregard it. It is well settled that an admoni......