91 N.E.3d 1016
Ind. Ct. App.2018Background
- Wilder, owner of a pierogi food truck, got into a physical altercation on Aug. 6, 2016, with Dennis Turpen; Turpen suffered lacerations after Wilder pinned and repeatedly banged his head on the ground. Witness Camp identified Wilder as the assailant. Wilder was charged with Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury.
- At trial Wilder argued self-defense and repeatedly attacked the police investigation for not interviewing him or his witnesses before charging.
- During the State’s case, Detective Duley testified he submitted charges because he felt the evidence (victim + Camp) was sufficient, and thus did not interview Wilder first. Wilder did not object at trial to this testimony.
- The jury convicted Wilder. At sentencing the court suspended time to probation and imposed a condition prohibiting Wilder from possessing firearms during the one-year probation. Wilder appealed.
- The court addressed two issues: (1) whether the detective’s testimony violated Ind. R. Evid. 704(b) and was fundamental error; and (2) whether the probation condition barring firearm possession violated the Second Amendment and Article I, § 32 of the Indiana Constitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of detective’s testimony under Ind. R. Evid. 704(b) | State: testimony was responsive and admissible given defense theory that police failed to investigate; defendant opened the door. | Wilder: detective’s statement that he felt evidence was sufficient was an impermissible legal conclusion/opinion on guilt under Rule 704(b). | No fundamental error; Wilder waived contemporaneous objection and had opened the door by attacking the investigation, so testimony was admissible. |
| Probation condition prohibiting firearm possession | State: condition reasonably relates to rehabilitation and public safety because Wilder committed a violent offense and probation is temporary. | Wilder: prohibition infringes his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment and Article I, § 32 of Indiana Constitution. | Condition upheld as applied: intermediate scrutiny applies (modest, temporary burden), government interest important, means substantially related; passes rational-basis and material-burden tests under Indiana law. |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (constitutional protection of individual right to possess firearms for self-defense)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (Second Amendment incorporated against the states)
- Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (two-step/interest-scrutiny framework for Second Amendment challenges)
- United States v. Yancy, 621 F.3d 681 (upholding firearm prohibition for presumptively risky classes as substantially related to safety)
- United States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (recognizing longstanding categorical exclusions from firearm rights)
- United States v. Williams, 616 F.3d 685 (applying intermediate scrutiny to certain categorical firearms exclusions)
- Sampson v. State, 38 N.E.3d 985 (opening-the-door doctrine permitting otherwise inadmissible rebuttal evidence)
- Williams v. State, 43 N.E.3d 578 (detective testimony as improper ultimate opinion under Rule 704(b))
- Redington v. State, 992 N.E.2d 823 (Indiana two-part analysis for Article I, § 32: rational-basis and material-burden tests)
- Lacy v. State, 903 N.E.2d 486 (recognizing a nonabsolute right to bear arms under Indiana law)