Konopasek v. State
946 N.E.2d 23
| Ind. | 2011Background
- Defendant Konopasek bench-tried for battery causing serious bodily injury; jury is not involved.
- Probation status evidence was elicited on direct and cross-examination to bolster credibility; defense objected on relevance.
- Trial court overruled the relevance objection; evidence concerned length of suspended sentence and probation details.
- Court of Appeals affirmed conviction and held the probation evidence was inadmissible but harmless.
- Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to address admissibility and reaffirm Fletcher limits on the judicial-temperance presumption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether probation evidence was admissible and relevant | Konopasek's probation details were probative of credibility and potential bias against him. | Probation evidence was not relevant and impermissibly biased the proceeding. | Evidence deemed relevant and admissible; not unduly prejudicial. |
| Whether the judicial-temperance presumption applies and governs harmless error | Presumption should apply to sustain admission as probative. | Presumption may render improper evidence harmless only if not overcome. | Reaffirmed Fletcher limits; concluded presumption did not require reversal here because evidence was admissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fletcher v. State, 264 Ind. 132 (Ind. 1976) (limits on judicial-temperance presumption for bench trials)
- Shanks v. State, 640 N.E.2d 734 (Ind.Ct.App. 1994) (three factors for overcoming presumption; later developments discussed)
- Meadows v. State, 785 N.E.2d 1112 (Ind.Ct.App. 2003) (harmless-error framework when presumption overcome)
- Altman v. State, 466 N.E.2d 716 (Ind. 1984) (harmless error considerations in bench trials)
- Jackson v. State, 728 N.E.2d 147 (Ind. 2000) (opening the door concept in impeachment and relevance)
- Cutter v. State, 725 N.E.2d 401 (Ind. 2000) (waiver rules regarding trial objections)