Puckett v. State
| Decision Date | 09 December 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-582A116,4-582A116 |
| Parties | Otis C. PUCKETT, Jr., Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Richard L. Tandy, Greenwood, for appellant-defendant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Latriealle Wheat, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for plaintiff-appellee.
Defendant-appellant Otis C. Puckett, Jr. appeals his conviction by the Johnson Superior Court of Child Molesting.
We affirm.
This appeal presents the following issues:
1. Whether a sufficient foundation was laid to permit the victim to testify as to prior incidents of child molestation.
2. Whether the trial court erred in allowing the police officer to testify as to statements by the victim's mother in spite of the State's alleged violation of the trial court's discovery order.
3. Whether the trial court erred in questioning a witness after the attorneys for the State and defendant had completed their interrogations.
Puckett and S.B. were not married but had lived together during most of the five and one-half years preceding July, 1981. S.B. was the mother of two children, M.B., eleven years of age, and A.P., five years of age. Puckett was the father of A.P. but was not the father of M.B.
On the morning of July 7, 1981, Puckett forced M.B. to engage in an act of oral sex with him.
The first issue Puckett raised was whether the trial court erred in permitting the State to elicit testimony from the victim concerning prior sexual occurrences when the victim could not testify as to the specific times and dates of these occurrences. In his argument on this issue, however, Puckett only sets forth copious quotes from the record, and then briefly states he was "denied a fair trial" because the evidence before the court had no foundation, i.e. the witness was unable to testify as to the precise times and occurrences of the prior sexual acts.
Puckett was not denied a fair trial by the trial court cutting off cross-examination. On the contrary, the trial court was lenient to a fault with Puckett as to his cross-examination. Thus, his argument on this score fails. 1
While it is the general rule in Indiana that evidence of separate, independent and distinct crimes to establish the guilt of an accused is inadmissible except to show intent, motive, purpose, identification or common scheme or plan, our supreme court has carved out an exception to that rule as to those acts involving or demonstrating a "depraved sexual instinct." Grey v. State, (1980) Ind., 404 N.E.2d 1348, 1352. The victim's testimony in this case as to prior sexual acts fits comfortably within this exception. Further, in Bullock v. State, (1978) Ind.App., 382 N.E.2d 179 (), and Rhodes v. State, (1972) 154 Ind.App. 594, 290 N.E.2d 504 () we held the failure of witnesses to be specific goes to the weight of their testimony not its admissibility. Also, we have held the trial court is vested with broad discretion regarding the exclusion of evidence for remoteness. The fact that substantial time has passed goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. Grey v. State, (1980) Ind., 404 N.E.2d 1348; Omans v. State, (1980) Ind.App., 412 N.E.2d 305.
We now hold a witness's inability to testify as to the precise dates and times of prior sexual occurrences goes to the weight rather than the admissibility of such testimony in sex cases.
We find no error here.
Puckett next argues the trial court erred by failing to suppress a police officer's testimony concerning statements made to her by the victim's mother because the State violated a discovery order by not producing prior to trial (a) a written waiver of rights by the mother, and (b) the police officer's notes as to a conversation had with her.
The question of violation of the discovery order came to the attention of the trial court twice: once during the testimony of S.B., the victim's mother, and once during the rebuttal testimony of the police officer. At that time, the trial court took Puckett's motion to suppress...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andrews v. State
...concluded otherwise. Other grounds also support our conclusion. Final instruction 19 comports with our decision in Puckett v. State (1982), Ind.App., 443 N.E.2d 77, 78, where we stated that "a witness's inability to testify as to the precise dates and times of prior sexual occurrences goes ......
-
Lahrman v. State
...Horne v. State, (1983) Ind., 445 N.E.2d 976, 980-82; Reid v. State, (1967) 249 Ind. 247, 250-51, 231 N.E.2d 808, 810; Puckett v. State, (1982) Ind.App., 443 N.E.2d 77, 78; Jones v. State, (1982) Ind.App., 435 N.E.2d 616, 621; Coleman v. State, (1980) Ind.App., 409 N.E.2d 647, 649; Hauk v. S......
-
Hobson v. State
...and probative under this rule. Lawrence, 464 N.E.2d at 924; Knisley v. State (1985), Ind.App., 474 N.E.2d 513, 516; Puckett v. State (1982), Ind.App., 443 N.E.2d 77. The incidents related by R.B. and K.W. manifest Hobson's predilection to engage in sexual contact with children; thus, the te......
-
Neaveill v. State
...sexual instinct. Jarrett v. State (1984), Ind., 465 N.E.2d 1097; Caccavallo v. State (1982), Ind., 436 N.E.2d 775; Puckett v. State (1982), Ind.App., 443 N.E.2d 77. Indeed, Caccavallo involves admission into evidence of photographs depicting oral sex between the child and the defendant. The......