Crider v. State
531 N.E.2d 1151
Ind.
1988
Check Treatment

*1 59, 374 trial App. made accusation N.E.2d 62. When at a false that T.C. arises, credibility of of sexual misconduct. situation against C.P. emerges did as crucial to by T.C. State’s witness con attributed to C.P. misconduct contaсt, oral-genital Any ensuing and was mini-trial to be con viction. involve appel upon falsity from ducted truth or such different nature therefore Nevertheless, accusation, scope by prior alleged criminal acts. restrained lant’s by by judge, said exercise of discretion trial misconduct of C.P. was the sexual it, imposed place during necessary the same I see cost as to have T.C. justice sys рark in the as the the witnesses the criminal as and same month tem, appellant upon right the basic to confront and brother. sexual attack years As out cross-examine. was ten old. T.C. opinion, that the law we know purpose Rape The main of the Shield upon a conviction countenances based prevent is to harrassment of single of a com testimony uncorroborated witnеsses, women, primarily testify who

petent witness. Lawhorn v. State of a claim sexual victimization. know that We also Little-Hall exception as not in- I see give jury impermissible Carter v. purpose. with such cоnsistent a child testimony instruction 639, we held given must be must be corroborated or prosecutrix questioning of a in a scrutiny or examination. cautious careful previous- rape case about whether she had 288, Lewis v. State 264 Ind. sexual mis- ly persons with deci of these rationale her, against direct- conduct “.. was of a fair existence sions based activity past sexual ed towards cross-examine оpportunity to confront and ”, reputation witness .. If it be the trier of fact. witnesses before improper therefore under stat- and was T.C. made a false accusation true that Here, ‍​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​​​​​​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‍contrаst, the defense had ute. C.P., against as defense misconduct sexual one, two, prepared just witnesses live it be prepared prove, can was counsel prior charges prove the existence of duty judg its said that the fulfilled falsity. their of sexual misconduct and credibility I think not. of T.C.? ing the correctly said of similar could case, question to T.C. in this was case, undoubt judge the trial In this past directed towards quеstion. edly faced a difficult past sexual mis- than his lies about through applica rather testimony was excluded propensi- park, and thus conduct against impeachment rule of Indiana’s exaggеrate falsify about sexual ty or by showing specific of witnesses conviction, matters. not reduced to misconduct Rape as well.

upon the Shield statute indeed, but in important rules

Those are way to the give

this situation must cross examine right of the accused to

basic criminal witnesses at a prosecution’s 308, v. ‍​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​​​​​​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‍Alaska (1974), 415 U.S. trial. Davis Alternative 39 L.Ed.2d 347. 94 S.Ct. CRIDER, Appellant, Gerald law, I matter of State substantive ly, as a v. exclu apply exception of evidence when sionary rules the testi primarily upon rests tion’s case eye who admits single mony of a witness Supreme Court of similar having made a accusation 16, 1988. admissibility of sexual misconduct. recognized was first prior accusations suсh (1980), Ind.App., 413 N.E.

in Little v. State (1978), 176 Ind. and Hall

2d *2 Neu, Kizer, Humphrey, Joyce,

Jere L. Wyland, Humphrey, Wagner Gifford, & Plymouth, appellant. for Pearson, Gen., Linley Atty. Rodia, ‍​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​​​​​​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‍Jay E. Gen., Deputy Atty. Indianapolis, appel- for lee.

GIVAN, Justice. Appellant was convicted of seven counts Molesting, of Child one count of Child Abuse, Battery. He re- and one count sentences, (14) poses defendant years, fourteen six or his victims ceived (14) (6) years, years, (6) years, six fourteen tend the claim that he had (14) (2½) years, fourteen one-half two and depravity. propensity for sexual Most of (2½) (6) years, two one-half years, six in the case at bar have year, years, be served relationship pho- direct but are conсurrently. tographs persons presum- unidentified *3 appellant’s The victim ably pornographic facts are: pub- The taken from various 18,1971. January After on daughter, born that any lications. There is no evidеnce of in beginning of abuse instances several pictures appellant, the included and the her informed mother that the victim sister, only pictures and her of the victim abusing her. This her father had been although posed girls the while were wear- among appellant, argument an precipitated ing nightgowns, depict any not do wife, terminated and the victim and fully are and ‍​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​​​​​​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‍their bodies covered. and denying the accusation nothing photographs There about the spanking the victim with board. support which tends to the contentions of escaped her room to and victim then went concerning the State the crimes. going and to the by climbing out a window reason, pictures For this do fall the not her neighbor where she called house of cases, established our up. within criteria pick her Policе were older sister to notified, (1985), Ind., investigation including com- then and v. State Brackens menced. Lehiy v. 480 N.E.2d 536 and State Ind.App., aff'd., trial, testified that on vari- At the victim error 509 1116. It was for the N.E.2d her her father had fondled ous оccasions area, pictures into court to evidence. vaginal her to allow forced breasts fellatio, However, to perceive and threatened her with re commit we do bе hap- disclosed had bodily harm she what explicit In view of the testi versible error. also pened. The victim’s married sister mony of and her older sister the victim during fa- her childhood her testified that concerning repeated molestation in the same and also ther molested her by appellant, perpetrated we injury bodily to her if she dis- threatened ample evidence to find this contains record happened. tes- The sister closed what verdict; thus, appellant jury’s she had threats tified that because to him demonstrated younger her sister anyone until never told photographs. Gill v. the admission of her situation. disclosed (1984), Ind., officer, Lawson, investigating Ron concerning photographs various error for Appellant claims was testified photographs pornographic photographs which included into court allow the pursuant to a appellant’s home seized at illegally they were seized. evidence because search warrant. that the search war position He takes the adequately cover rant issued did court Appellant claims the trial placed were into evi photographs which allowing photo erred in called for the warrant dence. The search pursuant to the were seized graphs which victim’s photographs of nude seizure pic There are various search warrant. “any pictures of ex- older sister and showing men and women adult tures girls....” do We bondage genital ploitive ex nature of stages of recov photographs photographs a set of posure. perceive There is also that scope and her sister dressed revealing the victim exceeded the ered the search event, nightgowns. warrant, any as we the search out, was no re there have above in his is correct observatiоn resulting from the introduc error versible holding photo- cases that all scope of the photographs. may placed in incidents graphs little moment. is thus of search warrant photographs depicting evidence concern DeBRULER, Justice, dissenting. the trial court Appellant claims motion to dismiss erred in ruling correct in prosecu of a failure of the counts because taken from any evidence tor show erroneously lant’s home admitted into were actually committed alleged crimes were evidence. Clifford the statute of limita within 963, the trial court had allowed true that somе of acts display limita and her sister had testified sexually explicit movie found defend- years prior to place more than five There, home, and we affirmed. ant’s being against appellant. charges filed child testified that the defendant had victim during film one of the her the showed 35-41-4-2(d) However, Ind.Code which § sought he had occasions of limita- provides year for the five engage in deviant conduct with following proviso: includes the tions her. The thread relevance was clear *4 “The within which there; however, no such thread exists here. does not include must be commenced period in which: phоtographs, erroneously admitted tim’s light anyone of the her sister testified that anyone. him. ‍​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​​​​​​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‍by their father because cealed the fact of his acts of intimidation of “put ty by exercise of due not havе been In charge him with that statute of limitations the case the accused sister that she would “never see [*] day” offense, On # if she did not repeated attacks at discovered thereby and evidenсe bar, occasion, person conceals evidence [*] hospital” crimes authority and could both the victim and offense is unknown # they did not tell he threatened to successfully con- did not run until diligеnce; he told the vic- cooperate victims; that authori- sufficient [*] positive .... them thus, # told ” use of items which new ming pellant, that he was strate the my opinion, the evant one that the usual possession and use of these only place probative way, and thus more trial. from their photos therefore reverse conduct of adults put in the trial of criminal abnormal nature. daughters. would have vаlue would have against appellant, depicted accused in a bad photos themselves demon- erroneous admission. The There is a real are irrelevant and tend in his conduct towаrd to the defense stem- sexually In the State’s likely and remand for a inferred from the added photos by ap- to have been abnormal charges. weight light case. the irrel- was un- danger I to authori- made her disclosure Holmes Ind.App. ties. State v. did not err

The trial court ground on the appellant’s motion to dismiss KING, Appellant, Timothy Earl limita- expiration of statute of court is affirmed. The trial J., PIVARNIK, SHEPARD, C.J., and Supreme Court

concur.

DICKSON, J., in result without concurs opinion.

separate J., separate

DeBRULER, dissents with

opinion.