Rule inapplicable as witness’s credibility not attacked

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals found a trial court didn’t err by not letting a defendant introduce evidence of his brother’s prior robbery because the defendant wasn’t attacking the brother’s credibility.

William R.D. Britt was charged with felony robbery following a robbery at a Fort Wayne store. One of the witnesses, Benjamin Busbee, initially thought one of the robbers may be Britt’s brother, Brandon, who the witness played high school sports with. Britt had dropped out of high school and didn’t play sports, whereas Brandon played many sports.

After seeing a photo array of a more recent photo of Britt, Busbee immediately identified Britt as the robber instead of Brandon. Britt wanted to call Brandon as a witness and question him regarding his prior robbery conviction. The state didn’t plan on impeaching Brandon’s testimony based on his prior conviction and argued Britt shouldn’t be allowed to mention the prior conviction on direct examination.

Britt’s attorney claimed Indiana Evidence Rule 609 contained mandatory language regarding impeachment by former convictions, so he shouldn’t be limited in his questioning of Brandon. Britt’s attorney also said they weren’t calling Brandon solely to impeach his credibility. The trial court declined to let Britt introduce the evidence of the previous robbery. Britt was convicted of Class B felony robbery, Class D felony criminal recklessness, and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

The appellate court agreed with Britt that the language of Rule 609(a) is mandatory, but it is also expressly limited to when the evidence of the prior conviction is being offered to attack a witness’s credibility, wrote Judge Paul Mathias in William R.D. Britt v. State of Indiana, No. 02A03-1004-CR-253.

“Indeed, Britt used Brandon’s testimony to show that Britt did not play sports in high school, thus calling into question Busbee’s identification of the shorter robber as someone he had played sports with in high school,” wrote the judge. “He therefore had little to gain by attacking Brandon’s credibility.”

In addition, he even conceded on appeal he wasn’t attempting to attack Brandon’s credibility, so Evidence Rule 609(a) is inapplicable.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?