James Gilman v. State of Indiana
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 466
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On April 21, 2015 a high-speed collision between James Gilman’s Impala and Robin Kemp’s Equinox killed Kemp; Gilman left the scene without rendering aid and did not report the accident until days later.
- Police interviewed Gilman on May 15, 2015; he admitted he knew of an outstanding arrest warrant at the time of the crash.
- The State charged Gilman with Level 5 felony leaving the scene resulting in death; pretrial the court ruled evidence of Gilman’s knowledge of an outstanding warrant was admissible under T.R. 404(b) only if Gilman placed intent or motive at issue.
- Gilman rested without presenting witnesses; in closing defense counsel argued Gilman fled out of necessity and fear for his life, implying a defensive motive for leaving.
- Immediately after closing, the State moved to reopen to present rebuttal evidence that Gilman knew of the warrant; the court allowed reopening, Sergeant Heustis testified regarding Gilman’s knowledge, and Gilman was permitted to supplement argument and cross-examine (but declined to cross-examine).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in reopening the State’s case or admitting the rebuttal evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the State to reopen its case after closing to present evidence that Gilman knew of an outstanding arrest warrant | State: Reopening was proper rebuttal after defense raised motive/necessity in closing; probative value outweighed prejudice | Gilman: Reopening was prejudicial and the State had opened the door to intent earlier, so rebuttal was improper | Court: No abuse of discretion; reopening was reasonable and Gilman was not unduly prejudiced |
Key Cases Cited
- Maxwell v. State, 408 N.E.2d 158 (Ind. Ct. App.) (trial-court reopening of case reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Ford v. State, 523 N.E.2d 742 (Ind.) (factors for reopening a case and standard for reversing discretionary rulings)
- Gorman v. State, 463 N.E.2d 254 (Ind.) (no prejudice where witness was known and defendant had opportunity to cross-examine after reopening)
- Toops v. State, 643 N.E.2d 387 (Ind. Ct. App.) (elements of a necessity defense)