Thomas v. State
| Citation | 734 N.E.2d 572 |
| Decision Date | 06 September 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 48S00-9802-CR-81.,48S00-9802-CR-81. |
| Parties | Ellis THOMAS, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Patrick R. Ragains, Smith, Ragains & Cotton, Anderson, Indiana, Attorney for Appellant.
Jeffrey A. Modisett, Attorney General of Indiana, Stephen K. Tesmer, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for Appellee.
A jury convicted Ellis Thomas of murder, attempted murder, attempted robbery, and attempted carjacking. The trial court sentenced him to 110 years imprisonment. In this direct appeal, Thomas contends the trial court erred in introducing into evidence a letter Thomas authored and a telephone conversation recorded between Thomas and another person. We affirm.
In the early morning hours of October 3, 1993, Marvin McCloud and Damon Nunn were seated in McCloud's car in the parking lot of an after-hours night club. Thomas, along with his brother Walter Goudy, a cousin Lamont Thomas, and an acquaintance Kaidi Harvell, saw McCloud's car and devised a plan to take the rims and tires. As McCloud began to drive away, two gunmen approached the car with handguns drawn and began firing. McCloud died as a result of a gunshot wound to the chest. Nunn survived the fusillade although he was severely injured by five gunshot wounds to the face, chest, and leg. All four men were charged in the shootings. Under terms of an agreement, Harvell pleaded guilty to assisting a criminal. He testified at trial that Thomas and Goudy were the shooters. At a separate trial, in which Harvell also testified, Goudy was convicted of murder, attempted murder, attempted robbery, and attempted carjacking. See Goudy v. State, 689 N.E.2d 686 (Ind.1997)
.
While Goudy's case was pending, Thomas wrote a letter to the presiding judge claiming that he, and not Goudy, was responsible for shooting McCloud and Nunn. In fact, Thomas claimed that he and Harvell were the shooters. Thomas also telephoned Goudy's attorney making the same representation. The conversation was recorded. Over Thomas' objection at trial, the State introduced into evidence both the letter and the recorded conversation. Ultimately the jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged, and the trial court sentenced Thomas to 110 years in prison. This appeal followed. Additional facts are set forth below where relevant.
Thomas contends the trial court erred in admitting the letter and recorded conversation into evidence. He argues the State failed to lay a proper foundation for either exhibit. "The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims." Ind. Evidence Rule 901(a). When evidence establishes a reasonable probability that an item is what it is claimed to be, the item is admissible. Lockhart v. State, 671 N.E.2d 893, 901 (Ind.Ct.App.1996). When a trial court has made a ruling concerning the sufficiency of the foundation laid to justify the admission of evidence, we review that decision for an abuse of discretion. State v. Walton, 715 N.E.2d 824, 828 (Ind.1999).
The record shows the envelope in which the letter was contained bears a postmark from Flagstaff, Arizona with a return address for "Mr. Ellis Thomas 112188 Arizona State Prison, Winslow." R. at 1077. Although the postmark date on the envelope is unclear, the heading of the letter bears a date of "12/06/95." R. at 1074. At the time the letter was written, Thomas was incarcerated in the Arizona State Prison located in Winslow, Arizona. The record also shows that detectives Randy Tracy and Stan Young of the Anderson Police Department traveled to Arizona and interviewed Thomas while he was incarcerated. The letter makes reference to the Tracy/Young interview. It also identified a person by the name of "Kaidi" as being involved with Thomas in the shootings. Before the letter was admitted as evidence, Kaidi Harvell testified that he was in fact present when McCloud and Nunn were shot, and that Thomas was on the passenger side of McCloud's car during the shooting. Although Harvell's testimony regarding his own involvement in the crime differs from that described in the letter, Harvell's testimony nevertheless showed that the person who authored the letter had knowledge about the events of the crime that were not likely known by anyone in the Arizona State Prison other than Thomas. Finally, the record reveals that as the letter requested, Thomas was transported from Arizona to Indiana to testify at his brother's trial. We conclude there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that Thomas authored the letter. Thus, the State laid an adequate foundation to meet the requirements for authentication. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the letter into evidence.
The record shows that in July 1995 someone placed a call to the office of Goudy's trial attorney. The caller identified himself as Ellis Thomas, Jr. and said he was calling from Arizona. Although the details are not contained in the record, the call was prearranged, and the caller agreed that it should be recorded. The investigator hired by Goudy's attorney was present and questioned the caller. Through a series of questions and answers the caller gave a detailed forty-five minute statement concerning the events leading up to, during, and after the shooting. As with the letter, the caller made reference to the Tracy/Young interview and talked about his and Kaidi's involvement in the shooting. At a pre-trial hearing on a motion to dismiss the charging information, Thomas conceded that it was his voice on the recorded telephone interview.1 Admitting the recording into evidence at trial, the trial court ruled the recording had been properly authenticated in part because of Thomas' pre-trial concession.
As a general rule a defendant's pre-trial testimony can be used against him at trial. Johnston v. State, 517 N.E.2d 397, 401 (Ind.1988). However, exceptions to this general rule have been established when a defendant raises questions involving his rights in pre-trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bynum v. Lemmon
... ... Moreover, the State of Indiana introduced into evidence the two waiver forms ... After the officers testified and counsel presented argument, the ... case, as the district court observed, "testimony on a motion to suppress is not admissible at trial as evidence of the defendant's guilt." Thomas v. State, 734 N.E.2d 572, 574 (Ind.2000). Thus, even if Bynum had crumbled under cross-examination, it would not have affected the jury's estimation ... ...
-
Rutledge v. State
... ... Absolute proof of authenticity is not required. Fry v. State. 885 N.E.2d 742, 748 (Ind.Ct.App.2008), trans. denied. When evidence establishes a reasonable probability that an item is what it is claimed to be, the item is admissible. Thomas v. State, 734 N.E.2d 572, 573 (Ind.2000). Ind. Evidence Rule 901(b) provides [b]y way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, the following are examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of this rule and includes:Telephone conversations. Telephone ... ...
-
Yates v. State
... ... The trial court permitted the State to elicit such testimony from Detective Banush. As a general rule a defendant's pre-trial testimony can be used against him at trial. Thomas v. State, 734 N.E.2d 572 (Ind. 2000) (citing Johnston v. State, 517 N.E.2d 397 (Ind. 1988)). Exceptions to this general rule, however, have been established when a defendant raises questions involving his rights in pre-trial matters. Id. For example, testimony at a hearing on a motion to ... ...
-
Bryant v. State, 03A01–1110–CR–496.
... ... Absolute proof of authenticity is not required. Fry v. State, 885 N.E.2d 742, 748 (Ind.Ct.App.2008), trans. denied. When evidence establishes a reasonable probability that an item is what it is claimed to be, the item is admissible. Thomas v. State, 734 N.E.2d 572, 573 (Ind.2000). When a trial court has made a ruling concerning the sufficiency of the foundation laid to justify the admission of evidence, we review that decision for an abuse of discretion. Id. (citing State v. Walton, 715 N.E.2d 824, 828 (Ind.1999)). Ind. Evidence ... ...