Case Title: Ashton v. Anderson

Citation: 279 N.E.2d 210

Docket Number: 272S22

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 1972-02-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
279 N.E.2d 210 (1972)
Dorothy ASHTON, Appellant,
v.
William ANDERSON, Appellee.
No. 272S22.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
February 28, 1972.
Berry, Kincade & Miller, Terre Haute, for appellant.
*211 Dix, Patrick, Ratcliffe & Adamson, Terre Haute, Jack N. Cochran, Sullivan, for appellee.
HUNTER, Justice.
Petitioner, William Anderson, is before this Court on an Application for Transfer seeking review of the Appellate Court's opinion in Ashton v. Anderson (1971), Ind. App., 265 N.E.2d 719. The Appellate Court held that it was error for the trial court to disallow a question on cross examination concerning prior criminal convictions for the purpose of impeaching the credibility of the witness. The Appellate Court reversed the trial court's judgment and ordered that the appellant be granted a new trial.
At trial, counsel for Dorothy Ashton, plaintiff-appellant, attempted to cross examine one Lewis Ross, witness for defendant-appellee, as follows:
It is well established law that the first question relating to prior arrests was improper. See, Hensley v. State (1971), Ind., 268 N.E.2d 90; Petro v. State (1933), 204 Ind. 401, 184 N.E. 710. It is the objection to the latter question which was found by the Appellate Court to have been erroneously sustained. Thus the question before this Court is whether the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to allow counsel for appellant to question a witness on cross examination in regard to prior convictions for any criminal offense for the purpose of impeaching the witness' credibility.
The decision of the Appellate Court is based on the holding in McMullen v. Cannon (1958), 129 Ind. App. 11, 150 N.E.2d 765. In McMullen, the plaintiff, after testifying in his own behalf, was asked on cross examination whether he had been arrested and convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The question was objected to on the ground that it was wholly immaterial to the issues in the case. Counsel for the defendant replied that the question went solely to the plaintiff's credibility. The trial court sustained the objection. In reversing, the Appellate Court stated:
It is well recognized that a witness may be required on cross examination to answer as to prior convictions for the purpose of impeaching his credibility. Furthermore, it is unimportant whether the criminal convictions are of felonies or misdemeanors. See, McMullen v. Cannon, supra, and cases cited therein. However, this Court has never specifically decided whether a witness should be required to answer as to any prior conviction for any criminal offense without regard to the nature of the offense and its tendency to reflect on the credibility of the witness.
An examination of our prior case law in this area does not provide us with a definite answer as to what the rule should be. In Glenn v. Clore (1873), 42 Ind. 60, the Court, in holding it was error to admit in evidence the record of a conviction of the crime of assault and battery for the purpose of affecting the credibility of the witness, stated:
The statute relating to impeachment, referred to in Glenn v. Clore, supra, is IC 1971, XX-X-XX-XX, (Ind. Ann. Stat. § 2-1725 [1968 Repl.]). In Niemeyer v. McCarty (1943), 221 Ind. 688, 51 N.E.2d 365, the Court construed this statute similarly to the court in Glenn v. Clore, supra.
Thus it is quite clear that IC 1971, XX-X-XX-XX, (Ind. Ann. Stat. § 2-1725 [1968 Repl.]), permits, for purposes of impeachment, the introduction of the record of convictions for the crimes of treason, murder, rape, arson, burglary, robbery, kidnapping, forgery and wilful and corrupt perjury. Furthermore, the trial court cannot exclude such evidence as it is bound by this Court's interpretation of the above statute.
Another rule of impeachment by showing the prior conviction of a crime was recognized, quite possibly for the first time in this State, in the case of Parker v. State (1894), 136 Ind. 284, 35 N.E. 1105. The State, on cross examination, was permitted to question the defendants as to certain arrests and prosecutions, occurring in the past, for the purpose of discrediting their testimony. In holding that the questioning was proper, the Parker Court stated:
The decision does not reveal the nature of the crimes for which the defendants were prosecuted, but it is clear that the holding was not based upon the fact that the crimes were infamous. The Court, instead, relied on Bessette v. State (1885), 101 Ind. 85. Bessette, however, did not involve the issue of the propriety of questioning as to prior criminal convictions for the purpose of impeaching credibility. The Court in Parker also stated that the extent to which such cross examination shall be allowed is largely within the discretion of the trial court. In support of this proposition, only two cases from this jurisdiction were cited, City of South Bend v. Hardy (1884), 98 Ind. 577, and Conrad v. State (1892), 132 Ind. 254, 31 N.E. 805, neither of which held that the trial court had any discretion to permit questioning as to prior criminal convictions for purposes of impeachment. Thus it seems reasonable to conclude that the Parker decision established the rule that prior criminal convictions could be inquired of on cross examination to show the depraved moral character of the witness as affecting his credibility.
In Dotterer v. State (1909), 172 Ind. 357, 88 N.E. 689, the witness was questioned on cross examination as to whether he had previously been convicted of assault and battery. The Dotterer Court, although recognizing that assault and battery was not an infamous crime, held that such questioning was proper.
The Court in Dotterer relied on the Parker decision, and further held that such questioning was permissible due to "2116 Burns 1908, Acts 1905, p. 584, § 240." The statute last referred to is IC 1971, XX-X-XX-X, (Ind. Ann. Stat. § 9-1608 [1956 Repl.]). Language similar to that contained in IC 1971, XX-X-XX-X, (Ind. Ann. Stat. § 9-1608 [1956 Repl.]), can be found in IC 1971, XX-X-XX-XX, (Ind. Ann. Stat. § 2-1724 [1968 Repl.]). Thus the ruling in Dotterer would also be applicable to that statute as well. The impeachment rule set forth in Parker and Dotterer has been followed approvingly in numerous decisions. For example, see, Wells v. State (1959), 239 Ind. 415, 158 N.E.2d 256; Way v. State (1946), 224 Ind. 280, 66 N.E.2d 608; Fritch v. State (1927), 199 Ind. 89, 155 N.E. 257; Pierson v. State (1919), 188 Ind. 239, 123 N.E. 118.
Prior to Niemeyer v. McCarty, supra, it appears that it was within the sound discretion of the trial court to exclude such evidence if it believed that the nature of *215 the prior conviction did nothing to affect the credibility of the witness. In Robinson v. State (1925), 197 Ind. 148, 154, 149 N.E. 888, 890, Chief Justice Ewbank stated:
It is also interesting to note that in Way v. State (1946), 224 Ind. 280, 284-285, 66 N.E.2d 608, 610, a case decided after Niemeyer, the Court stated:
It is abundantly clear from the language used in the Way decision that the admission of such evidence was permissible, but there is nothing to indicate that the admission was mandatory.
This Court can perceive of no reason why a trial court should be absolutely bound to permit questioning concerning convictions for crimes such as speeding or jaywalking without regard to the nature of the crime and its tendency to reflect on the credibility of the witness. It is illogical to assume that a conviction of any crime reflects, ipso facto, on the credibility of the witness as to truth and veracity. In Fletcher v. State (1874), 49 Ind. 124, 132, the Court observed:
We are of the opinion that the above logic is also applicable to individuals who have been convicted of criminal offenses which have no bearing on the individual's propensity to tell the truth.
*216 Furthermore, we see little wisdom in permitting the exclusion of such evidence to rest in the sound discretion of the trial court. Simply stated, either the particular criminal conviction reflects on the witness' credibility for truth and veracity, or it does not. If the particular conviction is for a crime which has a tendency to reflect on the individual's credibility for truth and veracity, such evidence should not be excluded; if the prior conviction is for a crime which has no bearing whatsoever on his credibility for truth and veracity, such evidence should not be admitted.
In regard to this, Professor Wigmore stated:
The attitude found "entirely logical" by Professor Wigmore has been adopted in both the Model Code of Evidence and the Uniform Rules of Evidence. Rule 21 of the Uniform Rules of Evidence, reads, in part:
The sound logic of the above rule is clearly revealed in an article found in the Minnesota Law Review which reads, in part:
For all of the reasons discussed above, this Court holds that for the purpose of impeaching the credibility of a witness pursuant to IC 1971, XX-X-XX-XX, (Ind. Ann. *217 Stat. § 2-1724 [1968 Repl.] or IC 1971, XX-X-XX-X, (Ind. Ann. Stat. § 9-1608 [1956 Repl.], only those convictions for crimes involving dishonesty or false statement shall be admissible. It follows, therefore, that Niemeyer v. McCarty, supra, and McMullen v. Cannon, supra, are overruled to the extent they hold that evidence of any prior conviction for any crime must be admitted in evidence. However, this Court is bound by IC 1971, XX-X-XX-XX, (Ind. Ann. Stat. § 2-1725 [1968 Repl.]), which permits impeachment by showing prior convictions for crimes which would have rendered a witness incompetent. These crimes are: treason, murder, rape, arson, burglary, robbery kidnapping, forgery and wilful and corrupt perjury.
In the case at bar, counsel for plaintiff-appellant questioned the witness in regard to convictions for any crime. If counsel had a particular conviction in mind, he failed to make its nature known to the trial court by an offer to prove. Having determined that all crimes do not necessarily reflect on the credibility of the witness, we are of the opinion that the trial court did not err in excluding the question. It appears that the question was nothing more than a "fishing expedition" which, if answered, would not necessarily have revealed any admissible evidence. Such information could have been gained prior to trial by proper utilization of discovery.
Plaintiff-appellant also contends that it was error for the trial court to refuse Plaintiff's Instructions numbered 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9. We do not agree.
Plaintiff's Instruction No. 1 reads:
Plaintiff-appellant brought this action seeking to recover damages for injuries received in an automobile collision occurring on August 15, 1964, in Terre Haute, Indiana. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, William Anderson, failed to obey a stop sign, at an intersection, and that such failure resulted in a collision between his automobile and the plaintiff's automobile, in which the plaintiff claimed to be a passenger. The defendant-appellee, however, denied his negligence, claiming that it was the plaintiff who had disobeyed the stop sign. He further contended that the plaintiff was not a passenger, but rather was the driver of the car. Both parties introduced evidence in support of their respective contentions. Instruction No. 1, tendered by the plaintiff, takes from the consideration of the jury one of the most contested issues at trial, namely, whether the plaintiff was, or was not, the driver of the automobile. Therefore, it was proper to refuse this instruction.
Plaintiff's Instruction No. 7 instructed the jury as to the duty of a passenger in an automobile to exercise due care, and inferred that this was the only duty which could be imposed upon the plaintiff. This instruction was properly refused for the same reason stated in our discussion of Plaintiff's Instruction No. 1.
Plaintiff's Instruction No. 3 is as follows:
The substance of the above instruction, however, was sufficiently covered by Plaintiff's Instruction No. 2 which was read to the jury. Instruction No. 2 reads,
It is not improper for the trial court to refuse requested instructions where the propositions stated therein are sufficiently covered by other instructions actually given by the trial court. See, Central Ind. Rwy. Co. v. Anderson Banking Co. (1968), 143 Ind. App. 396, 240 N.E.2d 840; Central Ind. R. Co. v. Wishard (1917), 186 Ind. 262, 114 N.E. 970.
Plaintiff's Instruction No. 4 informed the jury that it was the duty of the defendant to exercise such care and caution as a reasonably prudent person would have exercised under similar circumstances in the operation of his automobile. The substance of this instruction was fully covered by other instructions given by the trial court, and it was not error to refuse it.
Plaintiff's Instruction No. 5 stated that it was not a defense for the defendant to assert that some person other than the plaintiff was negligent if the defendant himself was guilty of negligence. In his answer and throughout the trial, the defendant insisted that it was the plaintiff who had been negligent. At no time did the defendant attempt to raise the defense described in the above instruction. The above instruction, if it related at all to the issues, merely defined what would have been an unsuccessful attempt to prove contributory negligence. Court's Instruction No. 10 fully instructed the jury as to the defense of contributory negligence, and therefore it was not error to refuse the tendered instruction.
Plaintiffs' Instruction No. 6 set forth the law on the burden of proof and further stated that the jury could rely on any and all of the evidence, no matter who presented it. Plaintiff-appellant argues that this instruction was necessary to eliminate the danger that the jury might be of the opinion that only that evidence produced by the plaintiff could be considered in rendering a verdict in her favor. However, Court's Instruction No. 24 clearly informed the jury that all of the evidence should be considered in reaching a verdict.
Plaintiff-appellant contends it was error to refuse Plaintiff's Instruction No. 9 because it was correct to instruct the jury *219 that the plaintiff could recover only if she met her burden of proof. Here again, however, plaintiff-appellant has overlooked the fact this element of the instruction was fully covered by Court's Preliminary Instruction No. Four which was given to the jury.
It is also claimed that it was error for the trial court to give Defendant's Instruction No. 1, which reads as follows:
It is the contention of plaintiff-appellant that this instruction was improper since there was no evidence in the case that both vehicles entered the intersection at the same time.
There was a conflict in the testimony as to which vehicle entered the intersection first. There was also a conflict as to whether either, neither, or both vehicles stopped before proceeding into the intersection. Thus it would have been permissible for the jury to infer that both vehicles had stopped and then proceeded into the intersection at the same time. In Schlarb v. Henderson (1936), 211 Ind. 1, 7-8, 4 N.E.2d 205, 208, the Court stated:
The instruction given in the case at bar was clearly within the issues and pertinent to a question of fact which may have been inferred from the evidence. Therefore, it was not error to give the instruction.
For all of the foregoing reasons, this cause is transferred, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
ARTERBURN, C.J., and DeBRULER and PRENTICE, JJ., concur.
GIVAN, J., dissents.