Freed v. State
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1788
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- Freed was convicted in Indiana of Class B felony robbery, armed with a knife, against Cora Taegel at a Village Pantry.
- Freed challenged the admission of uncharged misconduct evidence (an unrelated burglary, forgery, and murder-for-hire solicitation) at trial.
- The State introduced Freed's jailhouse letter, which contained a confession to the Village Pantry robbery and a map; the letter also referenced an unsolved VP robbery, providing contextual confession.
- Corroborating evidence included testimony from Littrell and Goodman about Freed’s admissions, Detective Shumaker’s interview, and DNA and handwriting analysis linking Freed to the crime.
- The jury was instructed that uncharged misconduct evidence could be used for intent, knowledge, or identity and not as character evidence, and to consider context and reliability.
- The trial court admitted the letter over objections, and Freed was convicted based on the totality of the evidence, with sufficiency challenged on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 404(b) evidence was admissible | Freed argues the uncharged acts were unfairly prejudicial and improper under 404(b). | State contends the evidence corroborates the confession and is relevant to intent/identity. | Admissible for non-character purposes; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice. |
| Whether evidence suffices to sustain robbery conviction | State’s case rests on Littrell/Goodman testimony and the letter; credibility concerns exist. | Evidence including confession, DNA, handwriting, and voice identification supports guilt beyond reasonable doubt. | Sufficient evidence supports the robbery conviction; verdict affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hicks v. State, 690 N.E.2d 215 (Ind.1997) (Outline of Rule 404(b) admissibility and forbidden inferences)
- Wilson v. State, 765 N.E.2d 1265 (Ind.2002) (Rule 404(b) balancing probative value and prejudice)
- Willingham v. State, 794 N.E.2d 1110 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (Widely cited for Rule 403 balancing in context of 404(b))
- Scalissi v. State, 759 N.E.2d 618 (Ind.2001) (Abuse of discretion standard for admitting 404(b) evidence)
- United States v. Blake, 941 F.2d 334 (5th Cir.1991) (Corroboration of a confession via prior misconduct evidence)