Summer Snow v. State of Indiana
2017 Ind. LEXIS 479
| Ind. | 2017Background
- Before dawn, Summer Snow and Reginald Harris fought; Officer Terry Peck arrived and a physical altercation ensued in which Snow shouted, encouraged Harris, and later physically attacked Peck.
- During Snow’s arrest, Peck felt and heard an object fall; a handgun was found on the ground. Snow was not charged with any firearm offense.
- The State introduced the gun at trial over Snow’s and Harris’s objections; the gun was used to argue Snow was the aggressor and had escalated the encounter.
- Snow and Harris (jointly tried; later separately represented on appeal) challenged admission of the gun as unfairly prejudicial and argued relevance was speculative; trial court admitted it under Evid. R. 401/403 and instructed the jury on lawful carriage exceptions.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed (majority reasoning relied on res gestae/inextricably linked language); Chief Judge Vaidik dissented, citing res gestae’s disapproval.
- The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, held res gestae is no longer a valid basis for admissibility, and affirmed admission of the gun under the Evidence Rules as within the trial court’s discretion.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Snow's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the common-law res gestae doctrine remains a proper basis for admitting evidence | Res gestae/inextricably linked evidence explains the crime’s story and supports admission | Res gestae is outdated; admissibility must follow Evidence Rules | Res gestae no longer a valid basis; Evidence Rules govern admissibility |
| Whether the gun was relevant under Evid. R. 401 to Snow’s crimes | The gun tended to show Snow’s aggressive state of mind and possible retrieval from the house during the incident | Relevance is speculative because gun was discovered only after arrest; connection is tenuous | Trial court did not abuse discretion: liberal relevance standard allows inference gun showed aggressive state of mind |
| Whether the gun’s probative value was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice under Evid. R. 403 | Probative value (showing aggression/possible retrieval) outweighed prejudice; jury instruction reduced potential prejudice | Introduction of a firearm is highly prejudicial and risks suggesting an uncharged crime (illegal carrying) | Trial court acted within discretion: prejudice did not substantially outweigh probative value; jury instruction mitigated risk |
| Whether prior formulations ("inextricably bound up" / "part of the story") remain acceptable | Such formulations justify admission when evidence is closely related to the charged offense | Those formulations are res gestae variants and improper under Swanson and the Rules | Court disapproved "inextricably bound up" standard and rejected reliance on "circumstances and context" language |
Key Cases Cited
- Swanson v. State, 666 N.E.2d 397 (Ind. 1996) (res gestae is an imprecise common-law concept displaced by the Evidence Rules)
- Hubbell v. State, 754 N.E.2d 884 (Ind. 2001) (admission of weapons months after a crime was speculative and an abuse of discretion)
- Escamilla v. Shiel Sexton Co., 73 N.E.3d 663 (Ind. 2017) (discussing the liberal standard for relevancy under Rule 401)
- Zanders v. State, 73 N.E.3d 178 (Ind. 2017) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings: abuse of discretion)
- Dunlap v. State, 761 N.E.2d 837 (Ind. 2002) (trial court’s wide discretion in Rule 403 balancing)
- Hicks v. State, 690 N.E.2d 215 (Ind. 1997) (trial court has wide discretion on relevance and prejudice determinations)
- Jervis v. State, 679 N.E.2d 875 (Ind. 1997) (admission of weapons can unfairly prejudice if suggesting another uncharged crime)
- Pitman v. State, 436 N.E.2d 74 (Ind. 1982) (illustrative of historical use of res gestae to admit evidence)