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

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT