Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1507-CR-840 | February 12, 2016 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.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Michelle F. Kraus

Fort Wayne, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

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

February 12, 2016

Court of Appeals Case 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 | February 12, 2016 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 for breakfast. At some point, the two began to argue and Williams

asked 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, warning 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 Wyatt with 

Level 6 felony pointing a firearm and Level 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 firearm and two years for criminal recklessness. Wyatt now appeals. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1507-CR-840 | February 12, 2016 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 within 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 before 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 

interrogation room, mostly by himself, losing his temper. State’s Ex. 1. The 

trial court had granted a pretrial motion to exclude 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 to the 

admission of this video. Tr. p. 202-09. However, while 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 generally 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 | February 12, 2016 Page 4 of 5

[7] Wyatt’s cooperation with the police, or lack thereof, is 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 may 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 unless 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 end to interrogation 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 judgment in this case because we find that any error in 

the admission of the video was invited by Wyatt. Following Wyatt’s crossexamination, the State sought once again to introduce the video. The trial 

court met with both parties outside the presence of the jury 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 transcript to 

reference, took Wyatt at his word, and admitted the video for impeachment 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1507-CR-840 | February 12, 2016 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, then 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 admitted the 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 video was invited by 

Wyatt, and the issue is not subject to appellate review.

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

Bradford, J., and Pyle, J., concur.