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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT