Specht v. State
Decision Date | 17 August 2000 |
Docket Number | No. 82S009810CR612.,82S009810CR612. |
Citation | 734 N.E.2d 239 |
Parties | Ryan Michael SPECHT, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Terry A. White, Barbara Coyle Williams, Evansville, for Appellant.
Jeffrey A. Modisett, Attorney General of Indiana, Randi E. Froug, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, for Appellee.
Since adopting the Indiana Rules of Evidence six years ago, we have not considered whether a witness may be impeached with evidence of a guilty plea to a crime for which judgment has not yet been rendered. We conclude that the answer is still yes.
We described the events precipitating this case in an opinion issued earlier this year involving a confederate of Ryan Michael Specht.
Schmitt v. State, 730 N.E.2d 147 (Ind. 2000). A jury found Schmitt guilty of murder, attempted murder, and robbery, and we affirmed his convictions.
In the present case, we turn to appellant Ryan Michael Specht's contentions of error aimed at his convictions for felony murder, robbery, and attempted murder.
Specht claims that the trial court erred by permitting the State to impeach him on the basis of a prior guilty plea that had not been reduced to a conviction. Before the events that led to this case, the State charged Specht with confinement, and he pled guilty. The trial court accepted the plea and, pursuant to the State's recommendation, agreed to withhold judgment until January 5, 1999, and ordered Specht placed on probation. If Specht completed the terms of his probation, the court declared, it would enter judgment on the plea as a class A misdemeanor; if he did not, the court would enter judgment as a class D felony.
The court had not yet entered judgment when the present case commenced on August 3, 1998. At trial, the court denied Specht's motion in limine to prohibit evidence of the plea, and overruled Specht's objection to the State's use of the plea to impeach him.
Indiana Rule of Evidence 609(a) provides that proof that a witness has been convicted of a crime may be admitted for the purpose of attacking that witness's credibility if the crime involves dishonesty or if it is a crime catalogued in 609(a)(1). The list in Rule 609(a)(1) includes the crime to which Specht had pled guilty, confinement.
The issue, then, is whether a guilty plea not yet reduced to judgment constituted a conviction for impeachment purposes. Prior to the adoption of the Indiana Rules of Evidence, we held that it did, stating, McDaniel v. State, 268 Ind. 380, 383, 375 N.E.2d 228, 230 (1978) (citing State v. Redman, 183 Ind. 332, 109 N.E. 184 (1915)).
While the Rules of Evidence generally superceded previously existing common law, Rule 609(a) preserved, rather than replaced, our caselaw regarding impeachment. In proposing that this Court adopt Rule 609(a), our committee said, "Rejecting both the [Federal Rules of Evidence] and the [Uniform Rules of Evidence], this section preserves prior Indiana Law." Indiana Supreme Court Committee on the Adoption of the Indiana Rules of Evidence, Proposed Indiana Rules of Evidence [and Commentary] 40 (May 4, 1993).
Mr. Specht's lawyers have suggested that our 1978 opinion in McDaniel deployed older caselaw, developed for another purpose, to decide the question at issue. Nevertheless, decide it we did, and we retained existing Indiana law in adopting the Rules of Evidence.
McDaniel is still good law. Specht's motion in limine and subsequent objection to the State's impeachment on this basis were properly denied and overruled.
Specht also claims that the trial court erred by denying his motion for change of venue. A trial court's denial of such a motion will be reversed only for an abuse of discretion. Elsten v. State, 698 N.E.2d 292 (Ind.1998). To prevail on such a claim, a defendant must show "(1) prejudicial pretrial publicity; and (2) the inability of the jurors to render an impartial verdict." Eads v. State, 677 N.E.2d 524, 525 (Ind.1997).
That potential jurors were exposed to press coverage does not satisfy this test. Elsten, 698 N.E.2d at 294; see also Ind. Code Ann. § 35-37-1-5(b) (West 1998). Instead, a defendant must prove that the jurors were unable to disregard preconceived notions of guilt and render a verdict based on the evidence. Elsten, 698 N.E.2d at 294.
Judge Heldt questioned each juror extensively and permitted only those who said they could disregard pretrial publicity to remain in the venire.1 He excused jurors who were unsure about their impartiality.2 Finally, once the jurors were selected, the judge again asked them whether they had "read anything about th[e] case in the newspaper, see[n] anything on television, seen publicity at all... about th[e] case," to which they all answered no. (R. at 821.)
Specht Barnes v. State, 693 N.E.2d 520, 525 (Ind.1998). The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Specht's motion for change of venue.3
For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Myers v. Superintendent, Ind. State Prison
...the Indiana Supreme Court has noted that "the Rules of Evidence generally superseded previously existing common law." Specht v. State , 734 N.E.2d 239, 240 (Ind. 2000) ; see McIntyre v. State , 717 N.E.2d 114, 121 (Ind. 1999) (suggesting that it is an open question whether "common law decis......
-
Camm v. State
...added). This Court did not formally adopt the committee commentary, but has in the past relied on it. See, e.g., Specht v. State, 734 N.E.2d 239, 240 (Ind. 2000) (relying in part on commentary to Rule 609(a)); see also Atwell v. State, 738 N.E.2d 332, 335 n. 3 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (relying on ......
-
Outback Steakhouse of Florida v. Markley
...is an element of the crime. See United States v. Pritchard, 773 F.2d 873, 876 (7th Cir.1985). Outback cites Specht v. State, 734 N.E.2d 239, 240 (Ind. 2000) and McDaniel v. State, 268 Ind. 380, 383, 375 N.E.2d 228, 230 (1978) for the proposition that a guilty plea is equivalent to a convict......
-
McCarthy v. State
...that jurors are unable to set aside preconceived notions of guilt and render a verdict based upon the evidence. See Specht v. State, 734 N.E.2d 239, 241 (Ind.2000). There was no abuse of discretion IV. McCarthy also complains that his convictions are not supported by sufficient evidence. Wh......