Harold Bishop v. State of Indiana
40 N.E.3d 935
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Bishop appeals his murder conviction; trial admitted several pieces of evidence over defense objections.
- Shabazz identified Bishop as Zimbabwe (his alias) during police interviews after being shot and dying in surgery.
- Same handgun allegedly used in Shabazz and Cullens shootings; Cullens shooting occurred within hours of Shabazz, with shell casings and bullets matching from both scenes.
- Shell casings from Cullens were destroyed before testing could be completed, raising a due process concern under Trombetta/Youngblood.
- State moved to join three related shootings under one cause; joinder was denied; Rule 404(b) lighted upon at trial to show identity/motive/intent.
- The court gave limiting instructions; trial proceeded with evidentiary rulings on dying declarations and 404(b) evidence, culminating in a guilty verdict and 65-year sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| admissibility of dying declarations identifying Bishop | Shabazz's statements identify Bishop; dying declarations exception applies | Confrontation concerns under Crawford; statements are testimonial | Statements admitted as dying declarations; no Sixth Amendment error |
| admissibility of ballistics from Cullens scene | Casings link same gun to Shabazz and Cullens; probative for identity | Destruction of evidence; potential prejudice; bad faith not shown | Admissible; probative outweighs prejudice under 404(b) analysis |
| Rule 404(b) admissibility of Cullens shooting as identity/motive evidence | Cullens shooting closely related in time/place; shows shared motive and identity | Evidence risks improper propensity inference beyond allowable purposes | Admissible under 404(b) for identity/motive; probative value outweighs prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause; testimonial statements subject to cross-exam unless exceptions apply)
- Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (U.S. 2008) (forfeiture/dying declarations; Confrontation Clause exception)
- Wright v. State, 916 N.E.2d 269 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (dying declarations admissible; consideration of conduct and symptoms)
- Wallace v. State, 836 N.E.2d 985 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (dying declarations and Confrontation Clause analysis in Indiana)
- Kirby v. United States, 174 U.S. 47 (U.S. 1899) (dying declarations as common-law exception to confrontation)
- Hailes v. State, 113 A.3d 608 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2015) (confrontation clause and dying declarations tolerate exception)