Skaggs v. State
| Decision Date | 13 October 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-781A45,4-781A45 |
| Citation | 441 N.E.2d 19 |
| Parties | James SKAGGS, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
In our original opinion in Skaggs v. State, (1982) Ind.App., 438 N.E.2d 301, we affirmed James Skaggs's conviction for child molesting, IC 35-42-4-3. Skaggs now files a petition for rehearing and raises one issue meriting further comment.
At trial Skaggs objected to the State's impeachment of its own witness. He argued IC 34-1-14-15 does not permit a party to impeach its own witness. That statute states:
Party producing not to impeach--Exception.--The party producing a witness shall not be allowed to impeach his credit by evidence of bad character, unless it was indispensable that the party should produce him, or in case of manifest surprise, when the party shall have this right; but he may, in all cases, contradict him by other evidence, and by showing that he has made statements different from his present testimony.
The substance of this statute relates to the use of character evidence to impeach a witness. It is denominated an exception to the general rule stated at the end of the statute where it reads, "but he may, in all cases, contradict him by other evidence ...." Impeachment by contradictory evidence is permissible when a party's witness gives testimony prejudicial to the party calling the witness. Blum v. State, (1925) 196 Ind. 675, 148 N.E. 193. The trial court properly permitted the State to offer evidence impeaching a previously called witness.
The petition for rehearing is, in all other respects denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carter v. State
...Sec. 35-1-32.5-1. Morgan v. State, (1981) Ind., 425 N.E.2d 625; Skaggs v. State, (1982) Ind.App., 438 N.E.2d 301, reh. denied Ind.App., 441 N.E.2d 19, Trans. Appellant claims that there was insufficient evidence to prove him guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted. He specifically c......
-
Coleman v. Target Stores
...a whole to determine the intent of the legislature. Skaggs v. State (1982), Ind.App., 438 N.E.2d 301, 306, reh. denied (1982), Ind.App., 441 N.E.2d 19. Examining the Act as a whole is particularly applicable where otherwise inconsistent provisions would result. See Park 100 Development Co. ......
-
Kelly v. State
...in the trial of the alleged offender. I.C. Sec. 35-37-4-4; Skaggs v. State (1982), Ind.App., 438 N.E.2d 301, 305, rehearing denied, 441 N.E.2d 19. The statute was enacted to prevent a general inquiry into the past sexual conduct of the victim in order to avoid "embarrassing the victim and s......