Philip D. Kyle v. State of Indiana
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 148
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Philip D. Kyle lived with Shellie Peyton and her children; Peyton’s eight-year-old son N.P. later reported that Kyle had touched his penis on multiple occasions.
- The State charged Kyle with two counts of Class C felony child molesting; Kyle was arrested and prosecuted.
- While in jail, Kyle made recorded phone calls to Peyton in which he denied the offenses and urged her to get N.P. to change his story and contact the Child and Family Advocacy Center and the prosecutor.
- Peyton contacted the advocacy center and police, sought a re-interview of N.P., and was later convicted of assisting a criminal for attempting to get N.P. to recant.
- At trial the State played three excerpts of the jail calls and Peyton testified about her calls to the advocacy center and her conviction; Kyle did not object to the admitted excerpts or that testimony.
- The jury convicted Kyle on both counts; he appealed, arguing the calls were inadmissible under Evidence Rule 404(b) and Peyton’s testimony violated Evidence Rule 704(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of jail phone-call excerpts | State: calls show Kyle’s attempts to have N.P. recant and thus are intrinsic, probative evidence of cover-up | Kyle: calls were improper 404(b) evidence inviting propensity inference | Court: Kyle waived objection; calls were intrinsic to charged offense and probative value outweighed unfair prejudice; admission not an abuse of discretion |
| Admission of Peyton’s testimony about her conviction | State: Peyton’s actions were part of the same course of conduct and thus admissible as intrinsic evidence | Kyle: testimony improperly vouched for N.P. and suggested Kyle was already a criminal in violation of Rule 704(b) | Court: Kyle waived objection; Peyton’s conviction was admissible as intrinsic evidence of actions directed by Kyle; admission not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Lee v. State, 689 N.E.2d 435 (Ind. 1997) (evidence intrinsic to the charged offense is not barred by Rule 404(b))
- Johnson v. State, 725 N.E.2d 864 (Ind. 2000) (failure to object at trial waives appellate review of evidentiary admission)
- Cowan v. State, 783 N.E.2d 1270 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (distinguishing intrinsic acts from extrinsic acts under Rule 404(b))
- Ware v. State, 816 N.E.2d 1167 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (admissibility of intrinsic evidence turns on probative value vs. unfair prejudice)
- Scifres-Martin v. State, 635 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (evidence of a defendant’s attempts to suppress or cover up crimes is probative of guilt)