ILNews

Testimony showed intent in identity deception

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

During a trial for identity deception, a court correctly admitted evidence under Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b) of the defendant's prior interaction with the victim of his identity theft and previous instances of using the victim's information, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded today.

In Andrew G. Prairie v. State of Indiana, No. 29A02-0811-CR-985, Andrew Prairie was arrested and charged with identity deception as a Class D felony after he used David Hutchinson's personal information for billing at a hospital. Prairie had outstanding warrants and told police he used a fictitious person's information to avoid being caught; Prairie had actually been friends with Hutchinson in the past and once stayed at his home. That's how he obtained the needed information to use Hutchinson's identity.

The state filed a motion under Evid. R. 404(b) to use evidence of Prairie's prior relationship with Hutchinson and the testimony that Prairie had used Hutchinson's information to get a credit card and ATM card for Hutchinson's bank account. The trial court granted the motion that the evidence of prior bad acts wasn't too remote and it was probative on the question of the relationship between the two.

During opening statements, defense counsel said they didn't believe the state could show Prairie had intent to harm or defraud. The trial judge had considered later not admitting the evidence based on Iqbal v. State, 805 N.E.2d 401 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), but because defense counsel put the question of specific intent into question at trial, the judge allowed the evidence to be admitted. The jury convicted him on the charge. 

Prairie argued it was an error to allow the state to introduce that evidence under Evid. R. 404(b). The evidence was admitted under the intent exception set out in the rule, and is allowed when a defendant affirmatively presents a claim of particular contrary intent, wrote Judge Ezra Friedlander.

The probative value of the evidence in question outweighs the prejudicial impact of the evidence, the appellate court ruled. In the instant case, the evidence was introduced to show Prairie didn't intend to avoid arrest but to defraud Hutchinson. Intent to defraud is an element of the offense of identity deception.

In making his statement to police about using made-up information, Prairie implied to the detective that he didn't think Hutchinson existed, which is clearly not true, wrote the judge. Hutchinson's testimony about the relationship and prior identity theft was relevant in that it was probative on the question of Prairie's intent in providing false information to the hospital for billing purposes.

"Although there is certainly at least a theoretical risk that the jury could conclude under these circumstances that Prairie was guilty this time because he had done something similar to Hutchinson before, we find this risk is outweighed by the fact that Hutchinson's testimony makes the existence of the intent element of the crime charged more probable than it would be without Hutchinson's testimony," wrote Judge Friedlander.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT