20A03-1406-CR-200
Ind. Ct. App.Apr 9, 2015Background
- Victim Mark Miller, owner of a tattoo shop, disappeared Sept. 2012; his body was later found in a steel barrel in the St. Joseph River with gunshot wounds.
- Todd Stewart (defendant) worked at the shop; coworker Matt Howard testified Stewart shot Miller and forced Howard to help load the body into a barrel.
- Howard had earlier lied/manipulated during a polygraph exam; Stewart sought to cross-examine him about that manipulation at trial.
- Trial court excluded testimony and evidence concerning Howard’s polygraph manipulation under Indiana Evidence Rule 608(b).
- A jury convicted Stewart of murder; he was sentenced to 65 years and appealed arguing the exclusion violated his confrontation/cross-examination rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by excluding evidence of Howard’s intentional polygraph manipulation | State: exclusion proper under evidentiary rules and trial court discretion | Stewart: exclusion prevented effective confrontation and impeachment of Howard’s credibility and bias | Court: No error — exclusion was consistent with Rule 608(b); any limitation was within discretion and did not deny effective cross-examination |
Key Cases Cited
- Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15 (1985) (Confrontation Clause guarantees opportunity for effective cross-examination, not an unlimited one)
- Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) (Confrontation rights may yield to other legitimate trial interests)
- Tague v. Richards, 3 F.3d 1133 (7th Cir. 1993) (same principle regarding limits on confrontation)
- Pulliam v. State, 345 N.E.2d 229 (Ind. 1976) (scope of cross-examination lies largely within trial court discretion)
- Brooks v. State, 291 N.E.2d 559 (Ind. 1973) (total denial of cross-examination on credibility raises Sixth Amendment issue; lesser limits reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Hatchett v. State, 503 N.E.2d 398 (Ind. 1987) (distinguishing impeachment vs. bias evidence and upholding limits where bias was adequately explored)
- Beaty v. State, 856 N.E.2d 1264 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (trial court did not abuse discretion excluding prior-misconduct impeachment where jury was made aware of witness’s bias/plea deal)
- Manuel v. State, 971 N.E.2d 1262 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (prior recantation evidence not admissible to impeach victim’s credibility in similar prosecutions)