ILNews

Man's convictions upheld despite court's use of inadmissible evidence

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals found a trial judge abused his discretion in admitting portions of a defendant’s out-of-court taped police statements, but the appellate panel determined that error was harmless and not reason to reverse the man’s multiple rape and sexual conduct convictions.

Ruling on Imari C. Butler v. State of Indiana, No. 49A04-1012-CR-775, the appellate court unanimously upheld a ruling by Marion Superior Judge Kurt Eisgruber.

The case involved a woman identified only as B.G., who in April 2009 went to an Indianapolis club with two friends and later ended up alone with a flat tire. She’d given her cell phone to a friend and forgot to get it before they left the club and went separate ways, so B.G. went to pick up her phone later that night. She ended up driving around lost after 2 a.m. before her car hit a pothole and got a flat tire, leading her to a gas station where Imari Butler offered to fix the flat. He then asked for a ride and tried to touch her underwear before B.G. refused and smacked his hand away. Butler became demanding and angry, punching B.G. in the face and ultimately forcing her to give him oral sex in the car. Afterward, she tried to drive away but he then threatened to kill her and had intercourse with B.G. against her will.

B.G. went home and her roommate took her to the hospital. The rape investigation led to police interviewing Butler as a suspect in B.G.’s rape. The police learned Butler was detained on another matter and took him in custody, recording the interview that led to the state’s charging him with several felonies that included rape, criminal deviate conduct, and criminal confinement.

At a two-day jury trial in November 2010, Butler was convicted and sentenced to a total 60-year executed sentence, with the trial judge ordering 56 of those years to be spent in prison and four years in community corrections.

On appeal, Butler argued that the trial judge shouldn’t have admitted portions of his taped police interview with the detective. He’d objected at trial and stated the evidence was inadmissible, but after a redaction hearing the court allowed as evidence those portions referencing prior crimes, the detective's assertions of fact, and the detective's opinions about Butler’s character and guilt.

The appellate court agreed some of those statements should have been redacted, and it cited the case of Smith v. State, 721 N.E.2d 213, 216 (Ind. 1999), that held out-of-courts statements by police offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted aren’t permitted at trial. That is the same issue in this case, and the appellate judges found this evidence shouldn’t have been allowed.

But relying on Wilkes v. State, 917 N.E. 2d 675, 686 (Ind. 2009), the appeals court held that even despite that error, enough evidence also existed to affirm the convictions and so in the broader picture that error was harmless and doesn’t require reversal. Physical and DNA evidence and testimony are sufficient. The judges also noted that Indiana law allows uncorroborated testimony of a sexual-assault crime victim to be sufficient in sustaining a conviction, which the Court of Appeals held in 2006.

“In light of these facts, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting portions of Butler’s taped interview, but we will not reverse Butler’s convictions because the error was harmless,” Judge Patria Riley 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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT