Brewer also established that the jury is impermissibly tainted "when the aggravating circumstance to be charged is either a prior murder conviction, a prior murder unrelated to the current offense, or a prior life sentence." Although this testimony was admitted only to show that the gun had been in Thompson's possession before the crimes in this case, the State was allowed to elicit significant details of the prior murder and to establish that Thompson was convicted for it. Ct. App. We first examine what went on in the trial court. The trial court ruled that the State would be allowed "to simply explain presence and then cut it off and let's get on." You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. 492, 355 N.E.2d 843 (1976), however, stand for nothing more than what we have already concluded was permissible -- a showing, with reasonable factual context, of access to the murder weapon. 1987) (in prosecution for unlawful gun possession, recorded conversation between a police informant and the defendant about sale of the gun was properly admitted, but it was error to admit subsequent exchange on the same tape concerning unrelated drug sale). 13. A forensic pathologist who testified as to the causes of death of Hillis and Beeler was coincidentally the same doctor who performed Wesley Crandall's autopsy. Percy Thompson Profiles | Facebook Evidence of Prior Uncharged Misconduct On February 14, 1991, one month before the murders in this case, Wesley Crandall Jr. was shot to death in his home in New Castle, Indiana. Even if all the evidence related to the Crandall murder and Thompson's trial in Henry County were relevant and of probative value here, this evidence would not clear the balancing hurdle of Evidence Rule 403. We have little difficulty concluding that the fact and manner of Crandall's death, and Thompson's murder conviction, were highly prejudicial to Thompson. Trafficking Indictment Filed Against 60 People in Conspiracy That The relevance and balancing issues are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Despite the fact that Percy's description of Crandall's killing was largely uncontradicted and unchallenged, the State pointed to the testimony of several witnesses-the gun dealer who sold Crandall the murder weapon that Thompson eventually stole, the forensic pathologist who concluded that Crandall died of a gunshot wound to the head-to corroborate Percy's account. We need not address whether this error is a ground for reversal in the absence of any objection by the defense because the convictions must be set aside for the reasons explained in Parts II and III. Id. Second, although we find no directly relevant precedent, we are not willing to bootstrap failure to object to one major error into harmlessness of others in a death penalty case. The State's fallback position, advanced at oral argument in this Court, is that all evidence related to the Crandall murder was properly admitted because Percy's credibility was under attack. Percy's motive to implicate Thompson arose instantaneously because Percy essentially admitted to an accomplice role in the murders; Percy had every reason to shift culpability to Thompson while minimizing his own involvement. 5. Wesley Crandall was a small time marihuana dealer; they went there in a pick-up truck, and Jerry Thompson took his shotgun along. Percy testified that Thompson "shot" Crandall. There is enormous potential for prejudice in the guilt phase if the jury is permitted to know from the outset, in a murder case, that the defendant is a convicted killer. Ultimately this case turns on whether the jury's exposure to the Crandall incident exceeded permissible bounds. reach the remaining claims of error.See footnote 12 IV. He didn't stomp on him; he didn't take a shotgun and nearly blow his head off. Counsel contended that the evidence was entirely consistent with Percy's having committed the murders and that his testimony has been bought and paid for, a number of ways and as such is suspect.. denied; Pirnat v. State, 612 N.E.2d 153, 155 (Ind. In its effort to prove guilt, the State may not "flood the courtroom" with unnecessary and prejudicial details of prior criminal conduct merely because some of that evidence is relevant and admissible. The State's closing argument was replete with references to the Crandall murder, to the extent that an uninformed reader would assume that Thompson was being tried for the Crandall murder in this case. Is proof of that conviction in New Castle, proof of his guilt in this case? . Id. Ostrowsky, 501 F.2d at 324. Get free summaries of new Supreme Court of Indiana opinions delivered to your inbox! Jerry Thompson Thompson Profiles | Facebook . The fact of Thompson's conviction for murdering Crandall was wholly irrelevant to establishing his access to the murder weapon. As the defense's opening statement put it: Who does [the State] say was with Mr. Thompson in New Castle? A. Pretrial developments The admissibility of the Crandall murder evidence was contested from the outset. That is not the end of the analysis, however. Because we conclude that the extensive evidence of the prior crime was inadmissible under Indiana Evidence Rules 402, 403, and 404(b), and denied Thompson a fair trial, we reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. When this mandate is observed, the conviction will not be disturbed. . Opening arguments The State emphasized the details of Crandall's killing from the beginning. That charge was eventually dismissed in exchange for Percy's testifying about the deaths of Hillis and Beeler. Thompson and Percy each grabbed a large trash bag and drove back to Indianapolis. . Illinois state police recovered a nine-millimeter handgun from the vehicle that ballistics tests later determined was the weapon used to kill Hillis and Beeler. Arguably this prerequisite is not satisfied here. On a prearranged signal, Percy gave the gun to Thompson, who knocked Crandall down and stated that he thought he had broken Crandall's neck. The well established rationale behind Evidence Rule 404(b) is that the jury is precluded from making the forbidden inference that the defendant had a criminal propensity and therefore engaged in the charged conduct. The second best result is Jerry Lamar Thompson age 60s in Portland, OR in the Eliot neighborhood. . 1989) (citation omitted), the Double Jeopardy Clause does not preclude a retrial. As the defense's opening statement put it: Who does [the State] say was with Mr. Thompson in New Castle?
Wyoming District Court Judges,
Hammerless 22 Revolver,
Do Elain And Lucien Get Together,
Can Rabbits Eat Fried Plantain,
Daddy Dominant Traits,
Articles D