Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantappealtrialverdictlease
defendantappealtrialverdictlease

Related Cases

U.S. v. Safavian, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2006 WL 3378479
View Case »
Allen v. Lefkoff, Duncan, Grimes & Dermer, P.C., 265 Ga. 374, 453 S.E.2d 719, 50 A.L.R.5th 839
View Case »
Ogden v. Groves, 241 So.2d 756
View Case »
Farese v. Scherer, 342 F.3d 1223, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1000
View Case »
Hendrix v. Naphtal, 971 F.2d 398, 23 Fed.R.Serv.3d 145
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Whiteside v. State, 853 N.E.2d 1021

Facts

On January 22, 2005, David Fernandez left his son in their running Toyota Sequoia SUV while he entered an appliance store in Indianapolis. Whiteside, wearing a ski mask, approached the vehicle, convinced the child to exit, and then stole the SUV. The police apprehended Whiteside shortly after, based on the description provided by Fernandez and his son. Whiteside was charged with auto theft and later convicted.

On January 22, 2005, David Fernandez and his six-year-old son drove to an Indianapolis appliance store. Fernandez went into the store, leaving his son in his Toyota Sequoia SUV with the engine running. Wearing a ski mask, Whiteside approached the vehicle, tapped on a window, and told the child that his father wanted him in the store. The child went to the open door at the front of the store and saw his father inside. The child looked back at the car and saw Whiteside get in the car and drive away.

Issue

1. Did the trial court err in allowing the State to impeach Whiteside's witness with evidence of the witness's prior conviction? 2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in admitting evidence that the arresting officer addressed Whiteside by his first name? 3. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in admitting evidence that Whiteside had been incarcerated?

Whiteside raises two issues, which we restate as the following three: I. Whether the trial court erred in permitting the State to impeach his witness with evidence of the witness's prior conviction; II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence that the arresting officer addressed Whiteside by his first name; and III. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence that Whiteside had been incarcerated.

Rule

Under Indiana Evidence Rule 609(b), evidence of a conviction is not admissible if more than ten years have elapsed since the conviction or the release of the witness from confinement, unless the probative value substantially outweighs the prejudicial effect. Additionally, the court must provide advance written notice of intent to use such evidence.

Indiana Evidence Rule 609(b) provides, Evidence of a conviction under this rule is not admissible if a period of more than ten years has elapsed since the date of the conviction or of the release of the witness from the confinement imposed for that conviction, whichever is the later date, unless the court determines, in the interests of justice, that the probative value of the conviction supported by specific facts and circumstances substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect.

Analysis

The court determined that the trial court erred in admitting the witness's prior conviction as it fell outside the ten-year limit set by Evidence Rule 609(b). However, the court also found that the errors in admitting certain evidence were harmless, as they did not affect the substantial rights of the defendant. The court emphasized that the jury was properly instructed on how to consider the evidence, mitigating any potential prejudice.

The court determined that the trial court erred in admitting the witness's prior conviction as it fell outside the ten-year limit set by Evidence Rule 609(b). However, the court also found that the errors in admitting certain evidence were harmless, as they did not affect the substantial rights of the defendant. The court emphasized that the jury was properly instructed on how to consider the evidence, mitigating any potential prejudice.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed Whiteside's conviction for auto theft, concluding that while there were errors in the admission of evidence, they were harmless and did not impact the trial's outcome.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Whiteside's conviction for auto theft, concluding that while there were errors in the admission of evidence, they were harmless and did not impact the trial's outcome.

Who won?

The State prevailed in the case as the Court of Appeals affirmed Whiteside's conviction, finding that the errors made during the trial were harmless and did not affect the verdict.

The State prevailed in the case as the Court of Appeals affirmed Whiteside's conviction, finding that the errors made during the trial were harmless and did not affect the verdict.

You must be