ILNews

COA: Rule of incredible dubiosity not applicable

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a man's domestic battery conviction and sentence, concluding his wife's testimony about the altercation wasn't subject to the rule of incredible dubiosity.

In Shean West v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0812-CR-1084, Shean West argued because his wife's testimony contained some discrepancies compared to the police officer who testified at West's trial, the rule of incredible dubiosity should discredit Peggy West's testimony.

The appellate court concluded the rule of incredible dubiosity isn't necessarily rendered inapplicable merely because there is more than one witness who testifies for the state, wrote Senior Judge Patrick Sullivan. Peggy testified the altercation with her husband escalated from inside their apartment to outside near his truck and that he pushed her with such force she hit her head on the top of the truck and it hurt badly. The police officer testified Peggy knocked on his car window and told him that West had pushed her and she hit her head. He stated she didn't have visible injuries and she didn't want medical attention.

Peggy's testimony wasn't so incredibly dubious or inherently improbable that no reasonable trier of fact could believe it and her testimony shouldn't be disregarded merely because it doesn't precisely match other evidence or contains some discrepancies, wrote the senior judge.

"The standard for the rule is 'inherent contradiction' in the testimony of the witness under consideration, not whether that testimony may be in contradiction to the testimony of other witnesses," wrote Judge Sullivan.

The fact the police officer didn't see any visible injuries or bruises on Peggy doesn't detract from her testimony regarding hitting her head on the truck when West pushed her.

The appellate court declined to view Peggy's testimony in light of the officer's because that would be reweighing the evidence and assessing her credibility.

"Even were we to do so and note that Peggy West's trial testimony was more extensive as to the events which transpired than what she specifically told Officer Gates, such difference or differences do not indicate that her testimony is in contradiction to the testimony of the Officer," he wrote.

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. Based on several recent Indy Star articles, I would agree that being a case worker would be really hard. You would see the worst of humanity on a daily basis; and when things go wrong guess who gets blamed??!! Not biological parent!! Best of luck to those who entered that line of work.

  2. I was looking through some of your blog posts on this internet site and I conceive this web site is rattling informative ! Keep on posting . dfkcfdkdgbekdffe

  3. Don't believe me, listen to Pacino: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6bC9w9cH-M

  4. Law school is social control the goal to produce a social product. As such it began after the Revolution and has nearly ruined us to this day: "“Scarcely any political question arises in the United States which is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question. Hence all parties are obliged to borrow, in their daily controversies, the ideas, and even the language, peculiar to judicial proceedings. As most public men [i.e., politicians] are, or have been, legal practitioners, they introduce the customs and technicalities of their profession into the management of public affairs. The jury extends this habitude to all classes. The language of the law thus becomes, in some measure, a vulgar tongue; the spirit of the law, which is produced in the schools and courts of justice, gradually penetrates beyond their walls into the bosom of society, where it descends to the lowest classes, so that at last the whole people contract the habits and the tastes of the judicial magistrate.” ? Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

  5. Attorney? Really? Or is it former attorney? Status with the Ind St Ct? Status with federal court, with SCOTUS? This is a legal newspaper, or should I look elsewhere?

ADVERTISEMENT