ILNews

COA: Admission of prior convictions fundamental error

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals ordered a new trial for a sex offender convicted of failing to register while having a prior conviction. The court ruled the evidence regarding his prior convictions for failing to register shouldn’t have been admitted at trial.

In David Sasser v. State of Indiana, No. 79A04-1006-CR-457, David Sasser’s conviction hinged on the credibility of the testimony of Sasser and Tippecanoe Sheriff’s Department detective Greg Haltom.

When Sasser relocated to Indiana, he went to the sheriff’s department to register as a convicted sex offender, but Haltom said he didn’t have to register because the 10-year registration period had expired. After a later encounter with a West Lafayette police officer, Sasser learned that he should register. He immediately went to the sheriff’s department to register, but the computer system was down. He was given Haltom’s phone number and told to call the next morning. Sasser tried to call him several times and left a voicemail, but Haltom never returned the call. Haltom said he didn’t recall Sasser coming into the office the second time or receiving a voicemail. He also claimed he wouldn’t have sent someone home because the computers were down.

Once he was charged with failing to register as a Class D felony, Sasser went to the sheriff’s department and officially registered. He was later charged with Class C felony failure to register as a convicted sex offender while having a prior conviction and convicted on both counts. The trial court merged the convictions into the Class C felony conviction and sentenced him to six years in prison.

At issue is the admission of evidence of Sasser’s prior convictions. Although he didn’t object at trial, the Court of Appeals found the admission to be a fundamental error. While cross-examining Haltom, the defense counsel asked him about the dates in which Sasser had previously registered “And what it also indicates is when he was aware he had to register, he did?”

The trial court found the defense opened the door to evidence about Sasser’s prior convictions for failure to register and the defense didn’t object. The judges found that question didn’t open the door to evidence of Sasser’s prior convictions and the attorney was attempting to clarify the information that was already admitted as part of Exhibit 6.

“But given the fact that this case turned solely on the credibility of the witnesses, we can only conclude that admission of evidence regarding Sasser’s prior convictions for the very crime he was charged with herein was a proverbial poison pill that would have made it nearly impossible for the jury to listen to his version of events objectively and prevented him from receiving a fair trial,” wrote Judge John Baker.

The judges remanded for a new trial.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT