Lafayette v. State, 45S03-0904-CR-182
12-08-09, Ind.
Attorney: Mark A. Bates
Holding: In rape prosecution, trial court erred in admitting testimony about Defendant’s prior attempted rape conviction under the intent exception to Ind. Evidence Rule 404(b), because Defendant did not present a claim of particular contrary intent by claiming intercourse was consensual and by challenging complaining witness’s (CW’s) credibility on the issue of consent.
Evidence of prior crimes may not be used to prove a defendant’s character in order to show he acted in accord with that character, but such evidence may be admissible for other purposes, such as proving intent. Ind. Evid. R. 404(b). However, the intent exception is available only when a defendant goes beyond merely denying the charged culpability and alleges a particular contrary intent. Wickizer v. State, 626 N.E.2d 795 (Ind. 1993). Where State establishes that a defendant alleges a particular contrary intent, the evidence is still not admissible until trial court determines that the probative value of the evidence substantially outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Id. The evidence has substantial probative value if it is specifically and significantly related to the charged crime in time, place, and circumstance as to be logically relevant to one of the particular excepted purposes. Malone v. State, 441 N.E.2d 1339 (Ind. 1982).
Here, after Defendant cross examined CW, trial court ruled that he opened the door to admission of his attempted rape conviction when he attacked the credibility of CW on the issue of whether the intercourse was consensual. In reversing the trial court, Court held that Defendant’s claim that the intercourse was consensual does not present a claim of particular contrary intent for purposes of the intent exception to Evidence Rule 404(b). Such a claim actually puts the alleged victim’s intent in issue. Moreover, a defendant does not put his intent at issue by questioning the alleged victim’s credibility. A contrary rule would prevent defendants from exercising the right to confront a witness’s credibility. Held, transfer granted, Court of Appeals’ opinion at 899 N.E.2d 376 vacated, conviction reversed and remanded for new trial.
