Britt v. State
937 N.E.2d 914
Ind. Ct. App.2010Background
- Britt was convicted in Allen Superior Court of Class B felony robbery, Class D felony criminal recklessness, and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.
- The State charged Britt with four counts related to the 2008 Fort Wayne store robbery.
- Brandon, Britt’s brother, was offered as a defense witness; his prior robbery conviction was at issue for impeachment.
- The State moved to bar questioning Brandon about his prior robbery conviction; Britt sought to introduce it under Rule 609(a).
- The trial court questioned whether the evidence would be used to attack credibility or to show propensity, ultimately prohibiting the line of questioning about Brandon’s robbery conviction.
- The jury found Britt guilty on Count I (robbery) and Count II (carrying a handgun without a license) as amended, with other counts resolved or vacated; Britt appeals arguing the ruling prohibiting Brandon’s prior conviction evidence was error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| whether the trial court abused discretion by excluding prior-robbery evidence | Britt argues Rule 609(a) mandates admission to show credibility | State contends Rule 609(a) applies only when impeachment is at issue and here it wasn’t used for impeachment | no abuse of discretion; evidence excluded as improper 404(b) use and not to impeach Brandon's credibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Wells v. State, 904 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (evidentiary abuse standard; deference to trial court)
- Jenkins v. State, 677 N.E.2d 624 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (Rule 609(a) mandatory language for impeachment)
- Garland v. State, 788 N.E.2d 425 (Ind. 2003) (Rule 404(b) prohibits other-crimes evidence to prove character)
- Appleton v. State, 740 N.E.2d 122 (Ind. 2001) (impeachment limits; improper use of impeachment for otherwise inadmissible evidence)
- Welch v. State, 828 N.E.2d 433 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (offer of proof sufficiency for evidentiary errors)
- Cook v. Whitsell-Sherman, 796 N.E.2d 271 (Ind. 2003) (deference to evidentiary rulings; de novo review where rule construction involved)