ILNews

Appellate court upholds murder conviction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Although the trial court erred in finding a police officer was a skilled witness uniquely qualified to assess a murder victim's truthfulness, it was a harmless error because his testimony was an admissible lay observation, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded today.

In Theotis Tolliver v. State of Indiana, No. 45A03-0906-CR-250, Theotis Tolliver appealed his murder conviction and habitual offender enhancement resulting in 90-year sentence for shooting Benjamin Woodward Jr. Tolliver claimed the trial court erred by letting a police officer testify, based on Woodward's body language, about the "truthful" nature of certain statements made by the victim; by allowing into evidence some of Woodward's statements to his family as statements against interest under Indiana Evidence Rule 804(b)(3); by denying his motion for a continuance when a defense witness didn't appear at trial; and by prohibiting defense counsel from inquiring into certain state's witnesses' possible bias on cross-examination.

Tolliver and Woodward got into an argument after a dice game, which led to Tolliver shooting Woodward in front of several witnesses. Woodward told his family in the hospital Tolliver shot him but that he would take care of it and he wasn't a snitch. He didn't cooperate with police during the investigation. Woodward eventually died of his injuries.

The Court of Appeals agreed with Tolliver that the trial court erred by allowing a police officer to testify as a skilled witness regarding Woodward's body language at the time he made certain statements. The trial court allowed the officer to testify based on his interrogation training. Other jurisdictions have disapproved of body language testimony, and the appellate court was similarly skeptical of the testimony. Because the officer didn't testify regarding Woodward's specific truthfulness but just observed that Woodward was uncooperative, was angry, and didn't want to talk, that testimony is admissible pursuant to Evid. R. 701 as a lay opinion, wrote Judge Cale Bradford. As a result, it was a harmless error.

The Court of Appeals ruled the testimony by Woodward's family members that he told them Tolliver shot him and he would take care of it, shouldn't have been admitted into evidence as an admission against interest. The statements were merely a statement of intent. Given the independent eyewitness testimony identifying Tolliver as the shooter and the gun used to kill Woodward, the introduction of the family's testimony wasn't prejudicial enough to deny Tolliver a fair trial, wrote the judge.

The refusal to grant Tolliver a continuance to locate a defense witness wasn't an abuse of discretion because he had other witnesses testify on his behalf as alibi witnesses. In addition, there was difficulty locating the witness, who was likely uncooperative because he had three active warrants and was being investigated in connection with a murder case.

Finally the Court of Appeals found no error in limiting Tolliver's attorney's cross-examination of state witnesses about possible deals they would receive in exchange for testifying. The purported deals were purely speculative and unsupported by evidence.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

  2. Can anyone please help this mother and child? We can all discuss the mother's rights, child's rights when this court only considered the father's rights. It is actually scarey to think a man like this even being a father period with custody of this child. I don't believe any of his other children would have anything good to say about him being their father! How many people are afraid to say anything or try to help because they are afraid of Carl. He's a bully and that his how he gets his way. Please someone help this mother and child. There has to be someone that has the heart and the means to help this family.

  3. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  4. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  5. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

ADVERTISEMENT