Liddell v. State
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 853
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Liddell was convicted of rape, criminal confinement, and related offenses based on victims' identification of him as the assailant.
- Defense theory at trial was mistaken identity; the State introduced a late-discovered eyewitness, Parrish.
- Trial court denied motions to exclude Parrish or grant a longer continuance, but allowed deposition and discovery before Parrish testified.
- Parrish testified that Liddell was with the victims on the night in question and left with them in Liddell's car.
- Defense cross-examined Parrish at length; Liddell petitioned for more delay or exclusion of Parrish which the court denied.
- Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the trial court acted within its discretion and Liddell was not prejudiced by the late witness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Parrish's late testimony should have been excluded | Liddell | Losing chance to prepare, Parrish surprises trial | No; court did not abuse discretion in admitting Parrish. |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying a longer continuance | Liddell | More time needed to depose and prepare | No; deposition and brief postponement sufficient. |
| Whether late discovery of Parrish violated discovery rules | Liddell | Not deliberate misconduct by State | No; State acted within discretion. |
| Impact on defense strategy due to Parrish testimony | Liddell | Defense could challenge credibility; strategy adapt | Affirmed; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- F.E.H., Jr. v. State, 715 N.E.2d 1272 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (discretion to permit late-discovered witnesses; misstep requires prejudice beyond mere late discovery)
- Lay v. State, 428 N.E.2d 779 (Ind.1981) (adjournment or deposition can place party in as good position as trial would have done)
- Taylor v. State, 676 N.E.2d 1044 (Ind.1997) (trial court within discretion to deny further continuance but provide deposition access)
- Wilson v. State, 533 N.E.2d 114 (Ind.1989) (no misconduct; discretion to permit testimony stands)
- Murray v. State, 479 N.E.2d 1283 (Ind.1985) (no deliberate discovery violation; admissibility within court’s discretion)
- Kennedy v. State, 934 N.E.2d 779 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (no abuse of discretion where defense could investigate)
- Davis v. State, 714 N.E.2d 717 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (no reversible error where defense could challenge testimony)
- Cleary v. State, 663 N.E.2d 779 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (State’s late witness testimony not reversible error where defense had opportunity)
- Johnson v. State, 179 Ind.App. 28, 384 N.E.2d 1035 (Ind.App.1979) (continuance required when late witness prejudices defense; distinguishable but informative)