Dominique Brianna Bowman v. State of Indiana
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 139
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On July 23, 2015, Dominique Bowman and Crystal Washington had a physical altercation; after being separated, Bowman retrieved an iron-like object from a car and struck Washington in the eye, causing profuse bleeding.
- Washington’s left eye was ruptured and ultimately removed; she later wore a prosthetic eye.
- State charged Bowman with aggravated battery (Level 3) and battery resulting in serious bodily injury (Level 5).
- At trial the State introduced a photograph of Washington’s injury without objection and then sought to have Washington remove her prosthetic eye before the jury to demonstrate the severity and protracted loss.
- The court, after viewing a demonstration out of the jury’s presence, allowed publication of the live removal over Bowman’s Evidence Rule 403 objection; the jury convicted Bowman.
- Bowman appealed, arguing the live demonstration was unduly prejudicial and unnecessary given the photographs; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly allowed the victim to remove her prosthetic eye before the jury | The State: live demonstration was probative to show the protracted loss of a bodily organ and helped prove aggravated battery beyond photos alone | Bowman: demonstration was gruesome, unfairly prejudicial, and cumulative of admitted photographs; it likely inflamed the jury in violation of Evid. R. 403 | Court: Admission was within trial court’s discretion; judge prudently previewed demonstration outside jury, found it not unduly inflammatory, and allowed it; alternatively harmless error |
Key Cases Cited
- Crain v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1223 (Ind. 2000) (trial court’s careful balancing upheld use of a victim’s skull as demonstrative evidence despite alternatives)
- Burnett v. Caho, 285 N.E.2d 619 (Ill. App. Ct. 1972) (upholding removal of an artificial eye before a jury as proper demonstration of injury)
- Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Perrin, 64 P.2d 309 (Okla. 1936) (allowing exhibition of a prosthetic eye as evidence of wound)
- Bowerman v. Columbia Gorge Motor Coach System, Inc., 284 P. 579 (Or. 1930) (permitting plaintiff to remove a glass eye before jury with due regard for decency)
- Davis v. Christmas, 248 S.W. 126 (Tex. Civ. App. 1923) (permitting removal of an artificial eye on the witness stand as permissible evidence)