Lincoln R. Pickett v. State of Indiana
83 N.E.3d 717
Ind. Ct. App.2017Background
- Lincoln Pickett was charged under two cause numbers: multiple offenses including murder, obstruction of justice, abuse of a corpse, false informing, and failure to report a dead body; separately charged with unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon (SVF).
- The State amended the information to allege unlawful possession under the statute and proposed an instruction naming Pickett’s prior conviction (escape) rather than using the term “serious violent felon.”
- Pickett moved to bifurcate: try the non-SVF offenses first (Phase I) and defer the SVF/prior-conviction determination to Phase II; the trial court denied the motion.
- The State argued the amended information and the proposed instruction (naming the prior felony) reduced any prejudice from admitting the prior conviction at the main trial.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the denial of bifurcation for abuse of discretion and examined whether the prior escape conviction was relevant to proving the underlying offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying Pickett's motion to bifurcate the SVF/prior-conviction issue from the underlying criminal charges | The State: amendment and an instruction naming the prior felony (escape) avoid use of the term “serious violent felon” and reduce prejudice, so bifurcation was unnecessary | Pickett: his prior escape conviction is unrelated and highly prejudicial to the jury’s determination of guilt on the underlying offenses, so bifurcation is required | The court reversed: denial of bifurcation was error because the prior conviction was not relevant to proving the underlying offenses and risked undue prejudice; remanded for proceedings consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Spearman v. State, 744 N.E.2d 545 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (prior convictions inadmissible unless relevant or essential to an issue; relevance can overcome prejudice)
- Hines v. State, 794 N.E.2d 469 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (trial court abused discretion by refusing bifurcation where prior conviction not necessary to prove underlying offense)
- Hines v. State, 801 N.E.2d 634 (Ind. 2004) (supreme court adopted reasoning regarding bifurcation and SVF issues)
- Talley v. State, 51 N.E.3d 300 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (counsel’s strategic decision not to seek bifurcation was reasonable where prior conviction had relevance to context of arrest)
- Shelton v. State, 602 N.E.2d 1017 (Ind. 1992) (general rule that evidence of prior crimes is inadmissible because it does not tend to prove guilt of charged offense)
- Lawrence v. State, 286 N.E.2d 830 (Ind. 1972) (evidence must tend to prove a material fact; prior crimes admissible when relevant to issues like intent, motive, knowledge)