ILNews

Prior misconduct negates self-defense claim

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Evidence of a defendant's prior alleged domestic violence incidents against his ex-wife shouldn't have been admitted to explain the ex-wife's animosity toward him, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded today. However, the evidence was admissible because it was relevant to prove the ex-husband's motive to commit the domestic violence he was charged with in the instant case.

In Christopher R. Embry v. State of Indiana, No. 30A04-0906-CR-346, Christopher Embry challenged the admittance of five prior incidents of domestic violence he allegedly committed against his ex-wife, Miki. Embry was charged with Class D felony domestic battery in the instant case after he and Miki got into a physical altercation at her house in which he pushed her to the ground and hit her. Embry claimed he was acting in self-defense. The trial court initially granted Embry's motion that the previous incidents were inadmissible under Indiana Evidence Rules 404(b) and 403.

While on the stand, the defense counsel asked Miki about derogatory comments she had written about Embry on her blog. Based on her testimony, the trial court found Embry had opened the door to allow evidence of the prior incidents and allowed the state to question Miki about them. Embry was found guilty.

The state claimed the evidence of his prior acts of violence was admissible either to rehabilitate Miki's credibility or to prove Embry's motive for committing the crime. The appellate court rejected the state's first argument. Some jurisdictions have held that if the defense elicits a bias on the part of a state's witness, the state can respond by introducing the defendant's prior uncharged misconduct to explain the witness' antipathy. The judges decided not to adopt that view. Instead, they believed the use of uncharged misconduct in this manner belies the rules and purposes of witness rehabilitation.

"Offering the defendant's prior bad acts to explain a witness's animosity only reinforces - rather than disproves - the witness's disposition. Introduction of the defendant's uncharged misconduct thus violates the rule of logical refutation and has no rehabilitative value," wrote Judge Nancy Vaidik.

However, that evidence was relevant to show Embry's motive to commit the domestic battery charge. If a defendant claims self-defense and he advances a claim of particular contrary intent, it allows the state to be able to use his prior misconduct to disprove the victim was the first aggressor, the judge wrote.

"Embry's prior acts of violence against Miki evidenced his hostility toward her, which in turn was admissible to demonstrate his motive for a violent attack, which made more probable the conclusion that he assaulted her and instigated the entire physical confrontation," she wrote.

Although there was a danger of prejudice given the number of prior bad acts mentioned, the trial court gave a limiting instruction and admonished the jury that the evidence wasn't admitted to demonstrate character or prove action in conformity therewith, so there was no error in admitting the evidence.

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