ILNews

Receipt from mom’s cab ride does not prove son was home alone

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A trial court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded an undated taxi cab receipt that a LaPorte County man tried to offer as proof he did not participate in a robbery spree, the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled.  

In Mario A. Allen v. State of Indiana, 46A04-1203-CR-143, the Court of Appeals affirmed Allen’s conviction for attempted robbery and robbery, both Class B felonies, and his adjudication as a habitual offender.

Police arrested Allen and his three friends at a motel in Chicago hours after the robbery of an Easy Food Mart. At trial, Allen maintained he was home alone the evening his friends put on masks, entered gas stations and demanded money.

On appeal, he argued the state abused its discretion by excluding his proffered exhibit of a receipt from the Flash Cab taxi company. He sought to introduce this document to establish a timeline and bolster his defense that he was home by himself.

Allen’s mother testified she got the receipt when she left work at 9 a.m. and took a cab to her car. She told the trial court she then drove home, picked up Allen and, together, they ran an errand.

The Court of Appeals noted even if the receipt had a date and time stamp, it would still be irrelevant to Allen’s theory of defense. That his mother took a cab is not relevant to determining if Allen was home alone.

Allen also argued the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. He asserted two of his friends, arrested for the same incident, were not credible witnesses because their testimony was part of a plea agreement.

Again, the Court of Appeals rejected Allen’s argument. The jury knew of the friends’ involvement and could decide how much weight and credibility to give their testimonies. Consequently, the court declined to invade the province of the jury.

 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT