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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  2. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT