997 N.E.2d 38
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- In June 2011, defendant Audie Wilson (who sometimes used the nickname “Mike”) picked up 15-year-old C.C. to wash cars, later drove him to a house, performed oral sex on C.C., attempted anal intercourse, and ejaculated; C.C. reported the assault to his mother and police.
- The State charged Wilson with two counts of Sexual Misconduct with a Minor (Class B and C) and one count of Attempted Sexual Misconduct with a Minor (Class B); a jury convicted him on all counts and the court imposed concurrent prison terms.
- At trial Wilson testified about using the nickname “Mike”; on cross-examination the State questioned him about additional aliases/nicknames, over defense objection.
- Wilson tendered a proposed jury instruction that the defense of reasonable belief (that the victim was at least 16) must be proven by a preponderance; the court ultimately gave Final Instruction 23, which stated that if the defendant proved by a preponderance he reasonably believed the victim was 16 or older, the jury must find him not guilty.
- Wilson did not object to the final instruction at trial; he appealed asserting (1) improper admission of alias evidence on cross-examination and (2) that Instruction 23 improperly shifted the burden on the reasonable‑belief defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Wilson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether cross‑examination on aliases was admissible | Admission was within trial court discretion; Wilson opened the door by testifying to nickname “Mike,” and the nicknames were not unduly prejudicial | Admission was abusive/improper and unfairly suggested criminality (Rule 403/404(b) concerns) | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; Wilson opened the door and the nicknames did not imply wrongdoing |
| Whether Final Instruction 23 improperly shifted burden on reasonable‑belief defense | The reasonable‑belief clause is an affirmative defense located in a subsequent clause; defendant bears initial burden by preponderance, and the State must then negate any raised defense beyond a reasonable doubt | Instruction improperly shifted burden to Wilson on an element (knowledge of victim’s age), violating due process | Court affirmed (no fundamental error): the defense is an affirmative defense under statute and Moon; placing initial burden on defendant is proper; any instructional error favored defendant and did not require reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- VanPatten v. State, 986 N.E.2d 255 (Ind. 2013) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- Edgecomb v. State, 673 N.E.2d 1185 (Ind. 1996) (unnecessary or unproved aliases can create impermissible connotation of criminality)
- Moon v. State, 823 N.E.2d 710 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (upholding allocation of initial burden on reasonable‑belief defense to defendant)
- Lyles v. State, 970 N.E.2d 140 (Ind. 2012) (test for whether a statutory exception is an element or an affirmative defense)
- Jackson v. State, 728 N.E.2d 147 (Ind. 2000) (doctrine that a defendant can open the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence)
- Adkins v. State, 887 N.E.2d 934 (Ind. 2008) (defendant bears initial burden by preponderance on affirmative defenses)
- Bradford v. State, 675 N.E.2d 296 (Ind. 1996) (prosecution must ultimately negate defenses proven by defendant when sufficiently raised)