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. Hello currently just withdrew from laporte county drug court and now I have lost the woman I love which also was in drugcourt and was put in jail without a,lawyer presentfor her own safety according to the judge and they told her she could have a hearing in two weeks and now going on 30days and still in jail no court date and her public defender talks like he,s bout to just sell her up the river.

  2. I just wanted to point out that Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, Senator Feinstein, former Senate majority leader Bill Frist, and former attorney general John Ashcroft are responsible for this rubbish. We need to keep a eye on these corrupt, arrogant, and incompetent fools.

  3. Well I guess our politicians have decided to give these idiot federal prosecutors unlimited power. Now if I guy bounces a fifty-dollar check, the U.S. attorney can intentionally wait for twenty-five years or so and have the check swabbed for DNA and file charges. These power hungry federal prosecutors now have unlimited power to mess with people. we can thank Wisconsin's Jim Sensenbrenner and Diane Feinstein, John Achcroft and Bill Frist for this one. Way to go, idiots.

  4. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  5. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

ADVERTISEMENT