Appellant George Riley was convicted after trial by jury of delivery of more than 3 grams of cocaine, a class A felony, Ind. Code § 85-48-4-1, and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 26 years. Because we reverse the conviction and remand, we address only one issue raised in this direct apрeal: whether Riley was denied a fair trial when the State elicited testimony about his prior drug use and sales in violation of an order in limine.
Riley was conviсted solely on the testimony of Lennis Utley, who had been arrested after selling cocaine to undercover agents. In exchange for favorablе treatment, Utley agreed to testify that he had purchased the cocaine from appellant.
The trial court granted appellant's motion in limine, ordering the State to refrain from mentioning prior drug use or sale by Riley. Nonetheless, the prosecutor examined Utley as follows:
Q. Why did you go to that рarticular location that night when you were going to get some cocaine for (the undercover agent)?
A. Because I'd been there before and I'd gotten cocaine.
The trial court sustained a defense оbjection that the State was attempting to establish prior acts of misconduct.
Q. Now, how long have you known Mr. Riley?
A. Approximately a year or year and a half.
Q. And what's the nature of your relationship with him?
A. Friends.
Q. And do you have any other relationship with him?
A. No.
Q. Is this the first time you've ever handled any cocaine?
A. No, sir.
# L * % * *
Q. Now, this cocaine that you ... you say you did it before about ten times?
A. Yes.
Q. Where'd you buy it the prior times that you got it?
Hеre, outside the presence of the jury, the trial court granted defense counsel's motion to order the prosecutor to refrain from mentioning аny potential acts of misconduct unless such testimony was brought within legal exceptions to the prohibition such as common scheme or plan. The Stаte has not argued on appeal that the prosecutor's questions and the evidence which they intended to elicit met the common scheme or plan exception.
Q. Now, how many times have you bought cocaine ... you say you've used it about ten times, how many times ...?
A. Approximately ten or fifteen times.
# * * * *t *
Q. Now, did you buy from the same source all the time?
A. Yes.
Q. And where was that place?
Again, defense counsel оbjected and the jury was taken from the courtroom. The prosecutor argued that previous testimony *60 to the effect that Utley paid the same price for cocaine at each transaction established a common scheme and, therefore, made admissible the evidence of appellant's prior sales. The trial court sustained the objection, informing the State that the proper foundation had not been laid for introduсtion of the evidence it was attempting to elicit.
Q. Now, you say you knew George Riley for a couple years?
A. A year, year and a half.
* * * * # #
Q. About how often would you see him?
A. What do you mean by that?
Q. Well, have some contact with him, whatever, visit with him or whatever?
A. I saw him several times from then on.
Q. Several times?
A. Yes.
Q. And what would be the occasion for you those several times you met him later?
A. Just ...
Counsel's objection here was overruled because the trial judge felt the State was entitled to show the witness' relationship to Riley.
Q. And what would be the occasion for you those several times you met him later?
A. Just friendship and stuff.
Q. Well, "stuff", what stuff? how close were you? I mean,
A. Pretty close.
Q. Did you trust one another?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And was it merely just to visit every time you went to see him?
A. Just general friends, to say hi.
Q. Did you ever have any other reason to see him?
Counsel's оbjection was sustained and direct examination ended. On redirect, the prosecutor asked:
Q. I believe you testified in response to the cross-examination of Mr. Hicks that you were using cocaine and had used cocaine?
A. Yes, Sir.
Q. Quite a few times. Where did you get that cocaine you used?
Counsel оbjected that the State was repeatedly attempting to establish acts of misconduct without having laid the proper foundation. Again, the trial judge sustained the objection.
Q. Now, I believe there was also a question Mr. Hicks asked you ... you mentioned something about you were to pay your source?
A. I don't understand the question, sir.
Q. You were talking about you were going to pay your source and somebody was supposed to call and maybe help you out.
A. No, sir, I don't ... stand that at all. I don't under-
Q. Who was your source?
A. Where I got the cocaine?
Q. Yes.
A. George.
Q. And that's who your sourcе would have been that you would pay?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Now, you refer to him as your source, your source to cocaine, right?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Now, then, I believe you were asked if yоu had done any dope with this Cole fellow.
A. Yes.
Q. Who else have you done any dope with, let's say in the last year or year and a half?
A. Steve Lanman and a few of his friends from Evansville.
Q. Who else?
At this point counsel mоved for mistrial, stating the prosecutor was repeatedly attempting to "sneak into evidence" prior acts of misconduct. His motion was denied.
Q. Who else?
A. (Lanman's) friends that were down at that party that one night, Allen somebody and another friend of his.
Q. And who else?
*61 A. I can't think of his name. He got in trouble, too.
Q. Now, how about your source?
Q. Did you do any dope with your source? Who was your source, agаin?
A. George.
Q. And how about him? |
A. Yes.
Q. You have done some dope with him?
A. Yes.
The conclusion is inescapable that Riley was greatly prejudiced by the prosecutor's attempts to blacken his character in support of its case against him. The motion in limine was granted for the purpose of limiting the State's evidence to the confines of the legal propositiоn that evidence of criminal activities apart from the crime charged is inadmissible on the question of guilt. Brown v. State (1984), Ind.,
Despite the preliminary order аnd the trial court's repeated rulings in favor of the defense, the prosecution persisted in its attack by harpoon. The trial judge suggested to the Statе that he might be inclined to grant relief from the order in limine given the proper foundational showing of distinguishing similarities linking the crime charged and the previous aсtivities. See, Biggerstaff v. State (1977),
The trial judge here was faithful to his own order in limine and to the principles outlined in Brown v. State, supra, as he repeatedly sustained defense objections to the prosecutor's violations of the order. Still, as Justice Prentice wrote for a unanimous Court:
Although not entitled to a perfect trial, the defendant is еntitled to a fair trial; and where counsel has deliberately violated rights of the defendant and there is reasonable grounds to believe that such violаtion may have prejudiced his cause, a mistrial should be declared, if moved by the injured party.
White v. State (1971),
For these reasons the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial in accordance with this opinion.