ILNews

Judges uphold admission of robbery confession

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A trial court did not err in admitting evidence of uncharged misconduct from another incident during a defendant’s trial for robbery, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Monday. The evidence contained a letter that helped corroborate the man’s confession to the robbery.

Michael Freed robbed a Village Pantry convenience store in Lafayette in July 2008. He got $115 from the cash register, and the act was caught on tape, but the tape didn’t catch Freed’s face because he was wearing a disguise. It did record his voice. Freed was later arrested on charges of burglary and forgery for breaking into a couple’s home and stealing a checkbook. While in jail on those charges, Freed decided to have someone murder the couple so they couldn’t testify at trial.

He wrote a letter requesting the murder and gave it to another inmate to pass along to a hit man. The letter also contained a sentence saying “Check for an unsolved VP robbery in July of 08 at Concord and brady ln.” This was the equivalent of a confession to the VP robbery.

The other inmate notified police, who interviewed Freed. Freed also told another inmate about details from the VP robbery. DNA collected from Freed couldn’t exclude him as a contributor to DNA found on the hat worn during the robbery. A police detective also identified Freed’s voice as matching the one on the tape.

At Freed’s trial for robbery and theft relating to the VP robbery, Freed’s jailhouse letter containing the confession was admitted and the two inmates testified. Freed was convicted of Class B felony robbery.

In Michael Freed v. State of Indiana, No. 79A02-1010-CR-1187, he challenged on appeal the admission of the letter which contained information on the burglary, forgery and solicitation charges stemming from the break-in at the couple’s home. The judges affirmed its admittance, finding the uncharged conduct was relevant for a purpose other than suggesting the propensity to commit robbery. The burglary, forgery and murder solicitation contextualized Freed’s jailhouse letter and made it more probable that the confession to the VP robbery was authored by him, wrote Judge Nancy Vaidik.

While there was potential for prejudice, the judges found the probative value and need for the evidence was appreciable in the case. They noted that the trial court was conscientious in admonishing the jury that Freed’s uncharged misconduct – the burglary, forgery and murder solicitation charges – wasn’t admitted to demonstrate character or prove action in conformity therewith. There was also sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction, the appellate court ruled.

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