Ice Heard v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
45A03-1611-CR-2521
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jun 14, 2017Background
- On July 8, 2013, Harold Nichols and friends encountered William Heard and others; an altercation ensued and Ice Heard (defendant) approached, received a gun from a van occupant, and fired; Nichols was shot in the ankle.
- Police investigation included an anonymous tip identifying the shooter by the street name “Ice.”
- Sergeant Onohan, who had prior contacts with Heard and knew where Heard lived, went to Heard’s residence and located William; witnesses were shown a photo array and identified Ice Heard as the shooter.
- Heard was charged with aggravated battery (Class B) and related felony battery counts; at trial the anonymous tip and Onohan’s prior contacts with Heard were discussed.
- The jury convicted Heard on all counts; the trial court entered judgment and sentenced Heard for Class B aggravated battery. Heard appealed arguing improper admission of the anonymous tip and Onohan’s testimony about prior contacts/knowledge of Heard’s residence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Heard) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of testimony about an anonymous phone tip identifying “Ice” as shooter | Testimony was proper and, in any event, any mention was invited or cumulative | Admission prejudiced Heard because it suggested prior knowledge/identity not directly proven | Court: No reversible error — defendant invited the issue by eliciting it on cross-examination; any error was harmless/cumulative |
| Admission of Onohan’s testimony that he had “prior contacts” with Heard and knew where Heard lived (Rule 404(b) concern) | Testimony was limited, relevant to explain officer’s presence and identification procedure | Prior-contact testimony was irrelevant and highly prejudicial under Rule 404(b) | Court: Even if erroneous, testimony was brief/limited and harmless given strong eyewitness ID evidence; not reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 43 N.E.3d 578 (Ind. 2015) (standards for reviewing evidentiary rulings and abuse of discretion)
- Robey v. State, 7 N.E.3d 371 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (invited error doctrine and harmlessness when evidence is cumulative)
- Cole v. State, 970 N.E.2d 779 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (defendant cannot claim reversible error from testimony elicited by defense counsel)
- Johnson v. State, 6 N.E.3d 491 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (review of evidentiary rulings may be sustained on any record basis; harmless-error principles)
- Swain v. State, 647 N.E.2d 23 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (limitations on relevance of officer conduct explanation to elements of charged crime)