Anthony Lamar Caldwell v. State of Indiana
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 606
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- On July 21, 2003, L.C. was violently attacked in her New Albany home after an intruder entered through an unlocked laundry-room window; she suffered severe facial fractures and other injuries and reported an attempted rape.
- Blood on the laundry-room blinds yielded a DNA profile that matched Anthony Lamar Caldwell in 2007; Caldwell was charged in December 2007 and arrested in 2013.
- The State sought to introduce a separate September 16–17, 2003 incident in which a neighbor (J.H.), about a block away, reported a man looking in her back window; police later stopped Caldwell nearby and interviewed him.
- The trial court admitted evidence of the September incident under Evidence Rule 404(b)’s identity exception, instructing the jury to consider it only for identification; the jury convicted Caldwell of Class A burglary (bodily injury) and Class A attempted rape (deadly force).
- On appeal, the court held the 404(b) admission was an abuse of discretion because the uncharged act was not shown by substantial evidence and the two events were not “strikingly similar,” but the error was harmless given the DNA match; the court also found the dual sentencing enhancements overlapped and reduced the burglary conviction to a Class B felony, lowering Caldwell’s aggregate sentence to 70 years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Caldwell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility under Evid. R. 404(b) (identity) | September peeping incident is sufficiently similar (victim profile, proximity, time, method) and admissible to prove identity/signature. | The uncharged incident was not sufficiently connected to Caldwell and was only generally similar, so inadmissible under the identity exception. | Trial court abused discretion admitting the September incident under 404(b) (insufficient proof and not "strikingly similar"), but error was harmless because of strong DNA evidence and limiting instructions. |
| Double jeopardy from overlapping enhancements | Each offense was properly enhanced: burglary by bodily injury; attempted rape by deadly force. | Both enhancements rest on the same injurious conduct; enhancing both violates the common-law double-jeopardy rule. | Enhancements overlapped; reduce burglary from Class A to Class B and its sentence from 50 to 20 years; new aggregate sentence 70 years. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. State, 690 N.E.2d 224 (Ind. 1997) (identity exception applies primarily to signature crimes with a common modus operandi)
- Allen v. State, 720 N.E.2d 707 (Ind. 1999) (permitting other-act evidence under identity exception where crimes exhibited rare, striking similarities)
- Camm v. State, 908 N.E.2d 215 (Ind. 2009) (trial court must find threshold proof, relevance to non-propensity issue, and perform a Rule 403 balancing for 404(b) evidence)
- Campbell v. State, 622 N.E.2d 495 (Ind. 1993) (reducing one conviction where two enhancements rest on the same injurious act to avoid double jeopardy)
- Ramon v. State, 888 N.E.2d 244 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (recognizing that convictions enhanced by the same bodily injury cannot both stand)