Larry Bell v. State of Indiana
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 208
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- On Feb. 24, 2012, Larry Bell (25) and his stepbrother Cody Semenick (16) hosted a hotel-room party where C.M. (17) drank vodka and smoked marijuana and became extremely intoxicated, vomiting and losing consciousness.
- C.M. awakened several times to find Bell having sexual intercourse with her while she was drowsy, semi-conscious, and later unconscious; her clothing had been removed and forensic exam showed vaginal bruising and abrasions consistent with non-consensual sex.
- DNA from sperm recovered from C.M. matched Bell; hotel room condition corroborated C.M.’s account.
- Bell was charged with Class B felony rape (alleging C.M. was unaware intercourse was occurring) and criminal deviate conduct; he was acquitted of deviate conduct, convicted of rape, and admitted to being an habitual offender.
- At trial, over Bell’s objection the court admitted Bell’s out‑of‑court statement to a Michigan deputy that he could “read” people, which the State used to counter Bell’s defense that he didn’t know C.M. was unaware.
- Bell appealed, arguing the statement was inadmissible hearsay, irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial character evidence; the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility as hearsay | State: Statement is admissible as a party-opponent admission (not hearsay). | Bell: Statement is hearsay and should be excluded. | Court: Not hearsay under Evid. R. 801(d) because it is defendant’s statement. |
| Relevance | State: Statement tends to make knowledge of C.M.’s unawareness more probable. | Bell: Statement is irrelevant to whether he knew C.M. was unaware. | Court: Statement meets low relevance threshold (Evid. R. 401). |
| Unfair prejudice under Evid. R. 403 | State: Probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice. | Bell: Statement risks unfairly prejudicing jury. | Court: No unfair prejudice; the remark was non-inflaming bragging. |
| Character evidence under Evid. R. 404 | State: Statement was not offered to prove general character. | Bell: Statement impermissibly introduced character trait to show conduct. | Court: Not character evidence; brag about ability to "read" people is not character trait; admission upheld. |
| Harmlessness (if erroneous) | State: Admission harmless given overwhelming other evidence. | Bell: Any erroneous admission affected substantial rights. | Court: Even if error, admission was harmless in light of strong evidence of C.M.’s incapacitation and other conduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. State, 841 N.E.2d 631 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Amos v. State, 896 N.E.2d 1163 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (definition and inadmissibility of hearsay)
- Myers v. State, 887 N.E.2d 170 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (party‑opponent admissions are not hearsay)
- Bryant v. State, 984 N.E.2d 240 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (trial court discretion in Evid. R. 403 balancing)
- Duvall v. State, 978 N.E.2d 417 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (prejudice considerations under Evid. R. 403)
- Malinski v. State, 794 N.E.2d 1071 (Ind. 2003) (defining "character" and character evidence)
- Rogers v. State, 897 N.E.2d 955 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (harmless error standard for erroneously admitted evidence)
- Glover v. State, 760 N.E.2d 1120 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (definition of "unaware" in rape statute)
- Becker v. State, 703 N.E.2d 696 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (unconsciousness as lack of consent)