982 N.E.2d 434
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- Gray was convicted of Class D felony possession of cocaine and received a four-year sentence.
- Officer Morgan stopped the gray Crown Victoria for speeding; Gray rode as a passenger and appeared nervous.
- An inventory search yielded a small baggie containing approximately 2.5 grams of cocaine in the passenger doorframe.
- On direct examination, Morgan testified Gray initially said the cocaine wasn’t hers, later stating not to blame the driver.
- Defense sought to play a deposition audio recording to impeach Morgan’s inconsistent statements; the trial court excluded the portion and defense proceeded with other questioning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly excluded the deposition excerpt for impeachment. | Gray should be allowed to play the inconsistent deposition portion. | The tape could not be admitted without court review of its content. | Trial court erred in excluding the impeaching portion. |
| Whether the exclusion of the deposition excerpt was harmless error. | Exclusion was not harmless and affected substantial rights. | Any error was harmless since other evidence supported guilt. | Error deemed harmless on review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kimbrough v. State, 911 N.E.2d 621 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (standard for evidentiary rulings on impeachment and harmless error)
- Appleton v. State, 740 N.E.2d 122 (Ind. 2001) (impeachment requires warning and limited use to avoid substantive use)
- Jackson v. State, 925 N.E.2d 369 (Ind. 2010) (prior inconsistent statements are not hearsay when used for impeachment)
- Modesitt v. State, 578 N.E.2d 649 (Ind. 1991) (admissibility of prior inconsistent statements under Rule 613)
- Young v. State, 746 N.E.2d 920 (Ind. 2001) (prior inconsistent statements generally treated as impeachment unless used substantively)