*1 further trust. We of positions highest immaturity the of either impregnated to refuse has continued McCoy that note could Therefore, impregnation gender. actions, re- for his responsibility accept of crime of the an element possibly it that appeal argument his iterating molestation. child him engaged who K.C. actually was that infect- concluded already haveWe nature light In of intercourse. sexual is disease a venereal with victim ing a offend- of the and character the offense of mo- child of consequence merely possible enhanced MeCoy's that er, conclude we aggrava- proper therefore lestation appropriate. is years forty-five of sentence Brown, N.E.2d See factor. ting a possible is Likewise, impregnation Conclusion molestation, that child of consequence MeCoy's conclude We Certainly factor. aggravating proper ais evidence, by sufficient supported signifi- K.C. suffered harm McCoy's considered properly court trial neces- the elements than greater cant im- that he fact and the trust of position of- commission prove sary aggravating as stepdaughter his pregnated an considered to be fense, required sen- McCoy's enhanced factors, under factor aggravating appropriate appropriate years is forty-five tence 85-38-1-7.1(a)(1). section Code and the offense of the nature of the light and circum- facts Therefore, under the offender. character case, conclude we in this us stances before ag- assigned Affirmed. properly court trial that the impregnating McCoy's weight
gravating SHARPNACK, J., KIRSCH, C.J., and K.C. concur. Inappropriate Sentence III. ag that his argues McCoy
Lastly, forty-five sentence executed gregate courts Appellate inappropriate. years revise authority to the constitutional have if, consideration after a sentence concludes decision, light of inappropriate the sentence character offense nature of the BEATY, Appellant-Defendant, Charles 7(B) (2006); Appellate Ind. offender. v. 615, 624 State, v. Marshall denied. trans. (Ind.Ct.App.2005), Indiana, Appellee. STATE offense, find we nature of to the As No. 71A03-0511-CR-556. his McCoy impregnated significant it in this earlier elaborated Indiana. stepdaughter, Appeals Court decided we In Newsome opinion. 21, 2006. Nov. daughter impregnating that a father the of nature of vile to the contributed (Ind.Ct.App. 797 N.E.2d
fense. 2003). character Concerning McCoy offender, it relevant we find his own against offense this in one he was whom stepdaughter, *2 Attorney General Carter,
Steve At- Stein, Deputy Kathryn Indiana, Jodi IN, Attor- General, Indianapolis, torney neys Appellee.
OPINION
SULLIVAN,Judge. trial, Appellant, jury
Following of two counts convicted Beaty, was Charles felony and two D a Class Theft as as a Property Receiving Stolen counts Beaty pres appeal, Upon felony.1 D Class review, which we for our two issues ents (1) trial court as: whether restate cross-examination Beaty's limiting erred (2) witnesses, the State's one of precludes larceny rule whether counts both upon Beaty's Property. Receiving Stolen affirm. We jury's to the favorable facts most 2002, Hohler John reveal verdicts home Lowe's manager at a a lumber ac- Beaty became store. improvement Beaty, a Hohler because quainted contractor, often general self-employed gave Hohler Lowe's. supplies at bought damaged discounts legitimate eventu- Hohler items. clearance items or Beaty discounts give ally began without policy company in excess were out- began also Hohler authorization. from Lowe's Beaty merchandise give right so. to do authorization without up fix Hohler to allow eventually agreed Beaty and home owned a rental rent there to live Hohler allow exchange free. 2002, several Hohler and
On October loaded employees Lowe's other Beaty's onto merchandise Lowe's items of an prepared truck trailer. IN, Mishawaka, Attor- Verheye, P. Julie them items to reserve for the estimate ney Appellant. Repl.2004). (Burns Code Ed. § 35-43-4-2 Ind.Code Beaty's name. Based his earlier ac- ered were several which were in addition tions, Hohler had become the subject of alleged those to have been taken on suspicions Tammy Heinsohn, a loss October 18 and October 22. prevention manager at Lowe's. Ms. Hein- On December charged sohn videotaped Hohler and the other em- Beaty I, with: Count aiding and abetting ployees loading the merchandise onto Bea- the October 2002 theft of a miter saw ty's trailer. among Included the items and "other videotaped items" belonging to loaded onto trailer were a DeWalt- Lowe's; II, Count aiding and abetting the saw, brand miter siding material, flashing, October 2002 theft of "a cart full of gave soffits. Hohler Beaty a Lowe's (all merchandise videotaped, itemized list "pink ticket" to sign, "pink ticket" being in probable affidavit)" cause belonging to *4 by form used Lowe's to verify that a Lowe's; III, Count retaining "Lowe's win- customer has received what they earlier dows and doors at [Beaty's] rental unit on paid for. pink The presented ticket to ... E. Donald [Street]" which had been Beaty blank, was but he nevertheless Hohler; by IV, and Count retaining signed it. Hohler printed off the blank "Lowe's merchandise in approximate pink ticket so that the other Lowe's em- $12,000 sum of at his residence on ... ployees, who were apparently ignorant of Eavesham Court" which had been stolen on, what going was would believe that by App. Hohler. at 7-8. Hohler was Beaty paid for the items. Neither charged with three counts of theft as a Beaty nor Hohler paid any of the items Class D felony and ultimately agreed to Beaty's loaded onto trailer. plead guilty to one count of theft and 22, 2002, On October Beaty again testify came against Beaty. In exchange, the to trailer, Lowe's with his and more agreed to dismiss the remaining Lowe's merchandise was loaded onto his charges. by
trailer Hohler and other Lowe's em- A jury trial was held on August 8 ployees. Included in the items taken this through August trial, 2005. During the windows, time cans, were lumber, trash Beaty was repeatedly limited in ques- his and Beaty concrete. signed another blank tioning of Hohler with regard to other pink given ticket by to him Hohler and thefts and wrongdoing by Hohler which off drove without paying for the items. did not Beaty. involve Beaty testified that Ms. Heinsohn captured also this transac- he did not know that the items loaded onto tion videotape. on his trailer or found on properties were When by confronted Ms. stolen, Heinsohn and claiming to be Hohler's victim. investigator Lowe's Conachen, Mark Hoh- jury The given was evidence consisting of ler confessed his involvement. Hohler di- videotapes of the thefts on October 18 rected Mr. Conachen to three locations and an itemized list of over 150 where he said the stolen Lowe's by recovered Lowe's from the prop- could be found: home on Evesham erties. presentation After the evidence, Court, the rental property on Donald the trial court instructed jury that to Street by owned Beaty which Hohler was convict Beaty charged as in Counts III fixing up, and IV, residence on Du- the stolen property had to be "in bail Street. employees Lowe's police addition to and other than the items re- went to these locations and away hauled ferred to in I Counts and IL." Tr. at 585. six truckloads of property by identified jury The Beaty guilty found charged. Hohler as stolen. Among the items recov- On October the trial court en- aor character person's aof all four upon "[elvidence judgments
tered for the not admissible character trait of year to three sentenced counts conformity action proving purpose or- court count. each upon sentences occasion, except particular aon therewith under the sentences months six dered of a wit- character ... [evidence and served be executed II to I and Counts 607, 608 and in Rules ness, the remainder provided ordered consecutively and simply provides Rule Evidence proba- 609." suspended to be sentences may be a witness credibility of Appeal a Notice filed tion. party including the any party, attacked 8, 2005. November Rule 609 Evidence the witness. calling by evi- I of a witness impeachment governs convicted the witness dence the trial argues Beaty first no indica- there is Since crimes. certain by limit error reversible inquire Beaty wished that the tion Spe Hohler. cross-examination ing his convictions, Rule he should reduced ever into were Beaty contends cifically, inapposite. cross-examination allowed have been instances into inquire of Hohler at issue Evidence *5 did which by Hohler misconduct full as follows: here, reads being theory Beaty's Beaty, involve Evidence "(a) Reputation Opinion Lowe's from stolen previously had Hohler credibility of wit- of Character. in Hoh- pawn just Beaty was and that supported or claim, attacked may be ness Beaty's reviewing In ler's scheme. repu- or opinion form in the to admit evidence the decision reminded we are limitations: subject to these tation, but within a matter evidence exclude or to char- only (1) may refer the evidence court, we trial discretion sound (2) truthfulness, evidence only when for reverse acter will only is admissible logic and character of truthful clearly against decision the witness be character cireumstances after facts and of the effect 671, by opin- attacked been State, has 826 N.E.2d truthfulness it. Collins fore otherwise. denied, or cert. evidence reputation ion or trans. (Ind.Ct.App.2005), 677 -- 1058, 168 --, 126 S.Ct. denied, U.S. the Conduct (b) Instances Specific (2006). 885 L.Ed.2d of at- purpose For the of a Witness. ered- the witness's supporting or tacking he wished claim
Despite his of a crime than acts, ibility, other prior Hohler with impeach only to 609, in- Rule provided as close dangerously comes claim or into inquired be may not stances bad prior Hohler's offering into They evidence. by extrinsic proven charac bad prove in order however, discretion may, dealings with in his his action and that ter therewith, un- or truthfulness court, probative if In conformity Beaty was eross- into on inquired truthfulness, be Beaty wanted deed, appears it concerning the witness examination previously show un- or for truthfulness the character to demonstrate in order Lowe's from as to witness another truthfulness to have been likely more that Hohler being cross- character witness The Indiana case. in the instant the thief sup- (emphasis testified." examined Specifi this. prohibit of Evidence Rules plied). 404(a) provides Rule cally, Evidence
Beaty's proffered evidence was not in witness's credibility. Id. at 404 (quoting opinion form of reputation, and such Alaska, Davis v. 415 U.S. 316, 94 " evidence would therefore not be admissible S.Ct. (1974)). 39 LEd.2d 347 'A 608(a). Instead, under Rule Beaty wished more particular attack on the: witness' to delve into specific instances of Hohler's credibility is effected by means of cross conduct, prior ie. his thefts from his em examination directed toward revealing pos- 608(b) ployer. Rule specifically states that biases, sible prejudice, or ulterior motives specific instances of conduct may neither they witness as may relate directly inquired into proven nor by extrinsic to the issues or personalities in the case at evidence.2 There is an exception to this hand. ...'" Davis, Id. (quoting 415 U.S. at rule with regard to a conviction for a crime 1105). 94 S.Ct. See also Trice v. under which, mentioned, is State, (Ind.1988) (not- not applicable here because the conduct at ing difference between evidence of prior issue was subject never the of a criminal misconduct offered for impeachment pur- conviction. Similarly, the limited excep poses, which inadmissible, and evidence tion mentioned in the last sentence of Rule bias, misconduct to show which is ad- 608(b) is inapplicable here because Hohler instances). missible in certain did not testify regarding the truthfulness of another witness. Hatchett, cases In have the defendant proof offered consistently held that Evidence Rule concerning the prior convictions of one 608(b) prohibits the introduction of evi and proof witness of the criminal acts of dence regarding specific instances of mis another witness. The Hatchett court held See, conduct. eg., Johnson v. that although proof this was inadmissible N.E.2d 985 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (holding that impeachment evidence, the defendant *6 trial performance counsel's was not defec did not offer the evidence to impeach the tive for failing proffer to evidence that witnesses' Hatchett, character. 508 State's witness allegedly kidnapped and Instead, N.E.2d at 404. Hatchett offered robbed party another because Evidence proof the as evidence of the witnesses' 608(b) would have prohibited the ad bias, i.e., their curry desire to favor with such), mission of trans. denied. State, the and that prior their criminal gave nevertheless activities claims that them he was added incentive to attempting cooperate to show the with prejudice bias or the State. Id. The court Hohler, impeach not held, his however, character. that the trial court's exelu Our Supreme explained Court sion proffered in Hatchett v. evidence was not State, 503 (Ind.1987), N.E.2d reversible that error because Hatchett had suf there is a difference between ficient opportunity evidence of to explore the wit prior criminal conduct offered to impeach nesses' bias. Id. Both of the witnesses at the character of a witness and issue evidence admitted they that were testifying as offered to show the bias prejudice of a a result of an agreement State, with the witness. The introduction of evidence of a and both admitted to having prior convie- prior crime general is a attack on the tions which were admissible. Id. One of 608(b) Indiana Evidence Rule "At least one spoken commentator has contains a in broader limitation than that found in the Fed- favor of approach, Indiana's describing the Evidence, eral Rules of which do not limit view taken in the 'simply federal rules as a simple inquiry specific into instances of con- mistake'" (quoting Id. Graham Handbook Miller, Jr., duct. See 13 Robert L. (3d ed.1991)). § on Federal Evidence 608.4 Practice, (2d § ed.1995). Evidence 608.201 regarding of Hohler cross-examination illegal pos to admitted even the witnesses of misconduct. he Hohler's for which firearms, conduct session cireum- such Id. Under charged. not
was held that court stances, Hatchett II of cross-examination limitation trial court's court trial that Beaty claims not an abuse was witnesses of these judgments entering erred Id. discretion.3 IV, insisting III and Counts both upon and come Hatchett follow We violated actions court's the trial if Even here. conclusion same larceny single The larceny rule." "single Hohler's evidence proffering purpose articles when provides rule bias to show was Lowe's from thefts prior time, from the same taken at are character, attack generally than rather the same belonging to place, same discretion its not abuse did the trial a is but there persons, or to several person jury was evidence. excluding such Ben offense. single larceny, i.e. single i.e., bias, possible of Hohler's well aware (Ind.Ct. 532, 586 State, berry v. with curry favor his desire the sin behind The rationale App.2001). plea Hohler's regarding taking sever that the larceny rule is gle admitted with agreement from the same time same at the al articles length at some explored into evidence intent and single pursuant place Moreover, Beaty. by the State Thus, only one offense if design. Id. Beaty was rulings, despite but committed, may be there been evi- jury some place before able Id. one sentence. judgment and misconduct prior dence Spe- Beaty. involve not did Lowe's is clear Here, the evidence elicit evidence able to Beaty was cifically, from thefts separate two from levels two had stolen that Hohler the other on October Lowe's-one Hohler September Lowe's thefts these two 22. Because on October stealing others involved had been same time and at the same not occur did $1,000 to owed Lowe's, from pro- rule does larceny place, not involve did actions Lowe's inci- of these both hibit a fence given that Hohler Beaty, and oth- *7 Indeed, not claim Beaty does dents. evidence, this With landlord. to another Beaty's argument The heart erwise. had struck evidence and the that: exchange in the State agreement plea record in the nothing "Itlhere Beaty was Beaty, testimony against his items recovered whether establishes bias, Hohler's explore sufficiently able at and Streets and Donald Dubail excluding not err court did the trial part of home, not were which [Beaty]'s regarding other October occurring on of events the chain Hatchett, 508 See of misconduct. or multi- one stolen on were 18 conclude therefore 404. We at N.E.2d same these and whether ple occasions no reversible established Beaty has [Beaty] on by limiting of were received court's error the Sixth Clause of and Trice Confrontation Hatchett on the recognize that both sion 3. We Amendment, Evi- adoption Rules of Federal prior to the not decided were However, 315-16, Davis, 94 Evidence. at Rules of 415 U.S. See dence. Hatcheit, Davis, upon in relied the case S.Ct. 1105. deci- based its Supreme Court States United
1271 " multiple or occasions." Appellant's Br. gravamen 'the of the [receiving stolen at 16. property] statute is the possession of Thus, stolen property with Beaty's argument guilty knowledge he cannot be .... particular [The convicted both Counts III and ownership IV is not goods the basis that the is not an property he element re- of the crime and ceived the same property as the character of the act is not affected in subject was the any thefts on way by October 18 the fact that the property Instead, and 22. Beaty's argument may have belonged to several owners there is nothing the record to show that rather than one.'" Id. at 1353 (quoting the items supporting his convictions upon People Loret, v. 136 A.D.2d 526 i.e., III IV, Counts the items other N.Y.S.2d 874 (N.Y.App.Div.1988)) than those taken on October 18 and (emphasis in original). were either stolen or received on multiple " The court further agreed that 'retaining' occasions. the stolen property of different individuals We first observe that single larceny is but a single act and must be prosecuted rule its own terms refers to the taking only one offense if the evidence shows property, i.e., larceny or theft. The . that the retention possession crime of receiving stolen property, howev- such stolen property was simultaneous." er, does require the defendant Id. (quoting Bair, State v. 671 P.2d actually take property: person "A who (Utah 1983)). Because the defendant knowingly or intentionally receives, re- in Saucerman had received the stolen
tains, or disposes of property of anoth- items at the same time place, the court person er that has been subject held that only one offense had been com- theft commits receiving stolen property mitted. Id. at 1854. 85-43-4-2(b) ("Section § ...." 2(b)"). 1.C. Beaty's argument effectively asks us to Although framed as an issue of extend single larceny rule to apply to Squcerman double jeopardy, 2(b). Section reasoning is instructive.4 larce ny
A rule similar states argument that when multiple was before the items of are taken at the same time and Saucerman NE.2d (Ind.Ct.App.1990). from the same place, The defendant in there is but a single case, larceny, who had irrespective been convicted of three whether the prop counts of receiving erty belonged property, argued one or several people. that all three Benberry, could not By stand simple extension, the record then, revealed that he we can say that if a defen received all of the items of dant stolen property receives several items of stolen prop involved in the charges erty, three *8 at the knowing property same stolen, to be at place. time and The State countered the same that time and place, the same he has the defendant had reason to know that the committed act, but one criminal regardless items he received had been stolen from of whether the items he belonged received distinct sources. The Saucerman court to several owners or subject were the quoted with approval the following: more than Squcerman, one theft. See 555 Squcerman Indeed, the defendant unnecessary find it attempt analogize to analo- or gized his situation single larceny to the distinguish rule. the theft subsection of LC. 35-43- Id. at 1353 n. 2. The court conceded that 4-2 and receiving property stolen subsec- analogy "[whhile the is inappropriate, we § tion of LC. 35-43-4-2." Id.
1272
the items
he "received"
follow
that
also
no evidence
It would
1353-54.5
at
receiving
for
his convictions
supporting
of stolen
items
receives
if a defendant
that
occasion.
than one
stolen,
more
on
property
to be
stolen
the items
knowing
property,
he
places,
separate
or
times
separate
at
not actu-
did
the State
that
observe
We
acts.
criminal
separate
"receiv-
act of
charge
with
ally
regardless
true
to be
appear
This would
Bea-
charged
it instead
property;
ing"
belonged
he received
the items
whether
property.
the stolen
"retaining"
ty with
one
of but
subject
or were
owner
one
in Section
offense described
Although the
id.
See
theft.
"receiving
to as
2(b)
referred
generically
is
claim that
Beaty's
Thus,
regard
with
criminalizes
the statute
property,"
stolen
items
stolen
that the
no evidence
is
retaining,
there
or
receiving,
acts:
three
stolen
were
properties
on his
found
I.C.
See
property.
of stolen
disposing
argument
occasions,
the State's
or
multiple
case,
35-43-4-2(b).
present
In the
§
III
upon Counts
manner
to the
one as
is not
question
there
because
supported
are
and IV
proper-
the stolen
Beaty "received"
which
theft oc-
incidents
manner
one
instead
ty, but is
22
18
the October
than
other
curred
it.
"retained"
he
which
II,
I and
Counts
support
incidents which
above,
extension
As discussed
to the
As
misplaced.
are
arguments
such
to the
apply
larceny rule to
single
charges, it
by the theft
covered
items not
2(b)
rela
seems
in Section
actually
defined
items were
offense
that the
immaterial
dealing with
when
straightforward
tively
occasions
on different
taken
"receiving."
regarding
of the statute
portion
taking.
actual
charged with
was not
Cf.
aucerman,
at
555 N.E.2d
that there
claims
However, Beaty also
S
6
all the
where
imposition of one
to similar
have come
states
in other
5. Courts
place);
one
from
were seized
items
stolen
Loret,
See,
at
N.Y.S.2d
eg.,
526
conclusions.
State,
So. 89
176
at one time and
Fla.
possession
v.
129
(holding that
Hamilton
873
concealing
receiving
(1937)
or
(holding that
separate thefts
taken
place of several
at differ-
property
stolen
articles of
act of
one
different
constituted
owners
various
from
separate and unconnected
Bair,
times and on
ent
property);
of stolen
possession
criminal
which
separate offenses
re
constituted
(holding that either
occasions
206-08
P.2d at
671
one
crime in
as one
prosecuted
of differ
not be
retaining
property
could
stolen
ceiving or
later
property is
though all the
be
single
must
count even
act which
is a
ent individuals
defendant
possession
the evi
where
found
offense
prosecuted as a
see State
place). But
same
posses
time and
the same
the retention
established
dence
simultaneous);
Gilbert,
317-18
P.2d
property
Or.
574
the stolen
281
sion of
v.
pro-
(1978) (holding
under statute
Benberry, 742
Thus,
N.E.2d at 586.
by separate houses on
streets,
different
extension,
person
person
if a
retains
separate
items of
two
sto
crimi
nal acts of retaining stolen property even
property,
len
knowing the property to be
if the charge alleges that the items were
stolen, at one time and at one
place,
retained on the
day.
same
Only where the
defendant has committed but one criminal
items were retained at the same time and
retention,
act of
regardless of whether the
place does
prevent
the law
multiple conviec-t
items he
belonged
received
to several own
Loret,
ions.8 See
526 NY.S.2d at 878.
ers or
subject
were the
of more than one
Here,
reveals,
the evidence
Loret,
theft. See
(pos
N.Y.S.2d at 874
directly
does not
dispute, that apart from
session at one time and place of several
the items supporting the two convictions
items taken in separate thefts from various
theft,
for
items from Lowe's which had not
owners is but one crime because the crime been paid for were found at both of the
possession
criminal
property
stolen
is houses
by
owned
Beaty as
detailed
committed when and where the property is
charging information.9 Regardless
possessed).
It follows from this that if a
when or whom these
stolen,
items were
person retains items of stolen property,
regardless
of when these items were
knowing
stolen,
the property to be
at sepa
"received," Beaty "retained" items of sto-
subject
owners or were the
of more
acquitted
charge
of a
possessing
the items
than one theft. It would then also
particular
follow that
day,
doctrine
jeop-
of "former
person
if a
knowingly disposes
ardy" prevented
of items of
subsequent prosecution of
property, knowing
stolen
property
to be
possession
date),
of same items on a different
stolen,
separate
at
separate places,
times or
cited
§
in 24 ALR.5th
132 at
peri-
9[al. The
separate
acts,
he has committed
during
od
criminal
re-
of time
which one retains stolen
gardless
property
of whether
belonged
might
the items
therefore
particularly
not be a
subject
owner or were the
useful
determining
of but one
means of
theft.
whether more
Sanchez,
than one
offense has
occurred.
See
640 P.2d
(holding
at 1327
may
defendants
charged
separate
with a
disposing
count of
property
of stolen
for each
8. This solution is not without
prob-
its own
separate
disposure).
transaction of
lems: for if a defendant retained one item of
attic,
property
stolen
in his
retaining
while
necessarily
It is not
property
another item of
person
case that if a
stolen
in his base-
ment,
retains
property
items of stolen
the same
could it be
said that he has
retained the
place
times,
property
separate places
but different
in two
he has committed
and therefore
committed two
separate
acts of retention?
Be that as
criminal
acts. This is due
to the
continuing
may, regardless
it
retaining.
questions
nature of the act
For
to what
say
person
"separate places"
that a
constitutes
commits
purposes
more
than one
retaining
retention,
offense of
property
stolen
when he
we
pres-
are not called
ent
case to draw the
precisely.
line so
place
retains
it in one
period
but over a
expose
person
time would
to unlimited
charges
retaining
multiple
because the
oc-
jury
9. The
specifically
instructed that a
casions of
theoretically
conviction on Counts
retention could
only
III
IV could
occur
and/or
hour, minute,
every day,
be valid if the
or second. See State
retained was "in addi-
Schneller,
(1942)
tion to and other than" the items which had
199 La.
len favor curry the State's to incentive added being from him prevent not does the law for other prosecution to avoid order in sepa- of two the commission for convicted plea of the because precisely acts criminal prop- retaining stolen of acts criminal rate And, as by the State. offered agreement not err did Therefore, trial court the erty. these acts majority, by the noted convic- judgments separate imposing in As to a conviction. reduced not been had and III upon Counts and sentences tion effectively prevented Beaty result, was IV. why reasons additional into delving from is af- judgment Beaty against biased be would Hohler firmed. certainly Hohler the State. favor of good the State's remain to reasons MAY, J., concurs. prosecution avoid to in order graces with J., in result BAKER, concurs em- during his misconduct acts of other opinion. separate dis- the When at Lowe's. ployment against theft in result. concurring counts BAKER, the two Judge, missed opportunity the denied Hohler, Beaty was here result reached the agree with I motives and Hohler's biases fully expose to observes, majority aptly because, the as reasons the explore to chance jury place before to able Beaty was testify to motivation Hohler's surrounding miscon- prior of Hohler's evidence some as he did. Beaty. not involve that did at Lowe's duct ex- sufficiently able to these, where Hence, Beaty was as such In circumstances a witness notwithstanding the ex- to a deal offered bias Hohler's the State plore prosecu- Hoh- regarding avoidance in the evidence of other that results clusion un- retains essentially tion, of misconduct. the State specific let's to the extent to decide discretion fettered forth to set However, separately I write a wit- about learn jury should which limita- the trial regarding my views view, a re- such my In character. ness's of Hohler cross-examination on the tion cross-examine ability to on the striction wrongdo- thefts to other respect with Evi- goals with comport does Beaty. not involve did by Hohler ing said, I am That Rule 608. dence Evi- of Indiana spirit fully embrace I exception another yet belief in- 608(b), prohibits Rule dence specific admission preventing rule of misconduct instances into quiry aof in the absence misconduct acts of as a crime a conviction there is unless cireum- when follow should sure, rule To 609. in Rule provided arise. these such stances un- result practical logical produces was able event, any most circumstances. In der miscon- of Hohler's evidence some present case, consistent- However, in this pertaining duct, as well dupe" "the he was ly maintained thereby establish- plea agreement Hohler's position Hohler, the State's while bias, I concur possible ing beneficiary of a primary Beaty was affirming majority by the reached result Hohler himself between joint plan Beaty's convictions. large dis- materials building obtain p.Br. Appellant's free. or for counts cross-examination
By limiting Evi- accordance court excluded the trial dence