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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT