Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05

- 1507

- CR

- 840 | F e b r u a r y 1 2 , 2 0 1 6 Page 1 of 5



### MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLANT Michelle F. Kraus Fort Wayne, Indiana A TTORNEY S FOR A PPELLEE Gregory F. Zoeller Attorney General of Indiana George P. Sherman Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana



### I N T H E 

# COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

James J. Wyatt , Appellant

- Defendant,

v.


### State of Indiana , Appellee

- Plaintiff F ebruary 12, 2016 Court of Appeals Ca se No. 02A05

- 1507

- CR

- 840 Appeal from the Allen Superior Court The Honorable Wendy W. Davis, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 02D05

- 1501

- F6

- 4

Baker , Judge
.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05

- 1507

- CR

- 840 | F e b r u a r y 1 2 , 2 0 1 6 Page 2 of 5

[1] James Wyatt appeals the judgment of the trial court, arguing that it erred in admitting a ten

- minute video of him losing his temper while being held for interrogation at the police station . Finding that any error in the admission of this video was invited by Wyatt, we affirm.


## Facts

[2] On Christmas Day 2014, Wyatt’s father , Anthony Williams, invited Wyatt to his house f

or breakfast. At some point, the two began to argue and Williams

a sked Wyatt to leave. Wyatt remained hostile so Williams decided to leave the house himself. As Williams walked down the street , he called 911. He could hear Wyatt yelling behind him , war ning him to put down the phone. When Williams turned around, he saw Wyatt pointing a gun at him. Williams then began to run down the street . Police arrived at the scene shortly thereafter , but Wyatt had fled.

[3] The next day, police arrested Wyatt at a gas station. He was carrying a replica handgun on his person and a real handgun and ammunition were found inside his car. Williams would later identify the real handgun as the one he had seen Wyatt point at him. On January 2, 2015, the State charged Wya tt with
L evel 6 felony pointing a firearm and L evel 6 felony criminal recklessness. On May 12, 2015, a jury found Wyatt guilty as charged. On June 22, 2015, the trial court sentenced Wyatt to concurrent terms of two years and 183 days for pointing a fir earm and two years for criminal recklessness. Wyatt now appeals.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05

- 1507

- CR

- 840 | F e b r u a r y 1 2 , 2 0 1 6 Page 3 of 5 

## Discussion and Decision

[4] Wyatt argues that the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence at trial. The decision to admit or exclude evidence rests with in the discretion of the trial court and we will not reverse absent an abuse of discretion. Crocker v. State , 989 N.E.2d 812, 818 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effects of the facts and circumstances b efore it or if it has misinterpreted the law. Id.

[5] The evidence at issue here consists of a ten

- minute video showing Wyatt in an interr ogation room, mostly by himself, losing his temper. State’s Ex. 1. The trial court had granted a pretrial motion to e xclude this video from evidence, but changed its mind after finding that Wyatt had opened the door to its admission through his testimony. A review of the record shows that Wyatt said nothing during his direct examination that would have opened the door t o the admission of this video. Tr. p. 202

- 09. However, w hile being cross

- examined by the State, Wyatt was asked if he had been cooperative with the officers on the day that he was arrested. Tr. p. 215. Wyatt responded that he had been.

[6] “It is general ly true that when a witness offers evidence of his own character, he opens the door to the subject of his character for that trait placed in issue, and the State can introduce evidence of specific misconduct in rebuttal.” Newman v.
State , 719 N.E.2d 832, 836 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). However, statements made in response to questions asked on cross - examination in regard to collateral matters cannot be relied upon to open the door. Id.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05

- 1507

- CR

- 840 | F e b r u a r y 1 2 , 2 0 1 6 Page 4 of 5

[7] Wyatt’s cooperation with the police , or lack thereof, i s a collateral matter , as evidence of it would not be admissible for any other purpose than to contradict Wyatt’s statement on the issue

. See Shriner v. State , 829 N.E.2d 612, 621 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). This Court has made clear that

collateral matters m ay not be the basis for impeachment. A party may inquire into a collateral matter on cross

- examination, but the questioner is then ‘bound by the answer’ received; the impeaching party cannot thereafter offer extrinsic evidence to disprove the answer unles s the extrinsic evidence would be independently admissible.
Highley v. State , 535 N.E.2d 1241, 1243 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (citing Wells v.
State , 158 N.E.2d 256, 263, 239 Ind. 415, 428 ( 1959) (“[t] his rule is necessary in order that there be a definite en d to interrogati on regarding collateral matters;” “[o] therwise, litigation might be extended ad infinitum ”)); see also Ind. Evidence Rule 608 (b)

.

[8] However, we need not question whether the above authorities require us to reverse the trial court’s judgmen t in this case because we find that any error in the admission of the video was invited by Wyatt. Following Wyatt’s cross examination, the State sought once again to introduce the video. The trial court met with both parties outside the presence of the j ury and asked Wyatt if he had testified, on direct examination, that he had cooperated with the police on the day that he was arrested. Tr. p. 226

- 27. Wyatt answered affirmatively. Id. at 227. The trial court, not having the benefit of a typed transcri pt to reference, took Wyatt at his word, and admitted t he video for impeachmentCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05

- 1507

- CR

- 840 | F e b r u a r y 1 2 , 2 0 1 6 Page 5 of 5

purposes. The trial court took the additional step of instructing the jury that it was only to consider the video for its impeachment value.

[9] “A party may not invite error, the n later argue that the error supports reversal.” Kingery v. State , 659 N.E.2d 490, 494 (Ind. 1995). Here, the trial court was led to believe that Wyatt had informed the jury on direct examination that he was cooperative with the police, and it admitt ed t he video at issue because the video tended to show otherwise. The trial court believed that Wyatt had testified in this manner because Wyatt himself informed the trial court that he had. Therefore, it is clear that any error in the admission of this vide o was invited by Wyatt, and the issue is not subject to appellate review.

[10] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

B radford, J., and Pyle, J., concur

.