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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.