ILNews

Rule inapplicable as witness’s credibility not attacked

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals found a trial court didn’t err by not letting a defendant introduce evidence of his brother’s prior robbery because the defendant wasn’t attacking the brother’s credibility.

William R.D. Britt was charged with felony robbery following a robbery at a Fort Wayne store. One of the witnesses, Benjamin Busbee, initially thought one of the robbers may be Britt’s brother, Brandon, who the witness played high school sports with. Britt had dropped out of high school and didn’t play sports, whereas Brandon played many sports.

After seeing a photo array of a more recent photo of Britt, Busbee immediately identified Britt as the robber instead of Brandon. Britt wanted to call Brandon as a witness and question him regarding his prior robbery conviction. The state didn’t plan on impeaching Brandon’s testimony based on his prior conviction and argued Britt shouldn’t be allowed to mention the prior conviction on direct examination.

Britt’s attorney claimed Indiana Evidence Rule 609 contained mandatory language regarding impeachment by former convictions, so he shouldn’t be limited in his questioning of Brandon. Britt’s attorney also said they weren’t calling Brandon solely to impeach his credibility. The trial court declined to let Britt introduce the evidence of the previous robbery. Britt was convicted of Class B felony robbery, Class D felony criminal recklessness, and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

The appellate court agreed with Britt that the language of Rule 609(a) is mandatory, but it is also expressly limited to when the evidence of the prior conviction is being offered to attack a witness’s credibility, wrote Judge Paul Mathias in William R.D. Britt v. State of Indiana, No. 02A03-1004-CR-253.

“Indeed, Britt used Brandon’s testimony to show that Britt did not play sports in high school, thus calling into question Busbee’s identification of the shorter robber as someone he had played sports with in high school,” wrote the judge. “He therefore had little to gain by attacking Brandon’s credibility.”

In addition, he even conceded on appeal he wasn’t attempting to attack Brandon’s credibility, so Evidence Rule 609(a) is inapplicable.

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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT