Opinion ID: 853352
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Wrinkles' Prior Bad Acts

Text: The State introduced evidence through two witnesses of Wrinkles' aggressive behavior toward his wife. [7] Counsel lodged no objections to this testimony. Wrinkles contends that [o]bjections to any of this testimony would have been sustained because it was inadmissible and that he was prejudiced because [the testimony] made him appear violent and dangerous. Br. of Appellant at 31. The State counters that this testimony was admissible to show Wrinkles' motive and that he was not prejudiced in light of the facts of the shootingsWrinkles donned himself in camouflage, cut the phone lines, and shot his wife, brother-in-law, and sister-in-law in the presence of children. Although evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to show action in conformity therewith, such evidence may be admissible for other purposes, such as motive. Evid.R. 404(b); see also Cook v. State, 734 N.E.2d 563, 567 (Ind.2000) ([E]vidence of motive is always relevant in the proof of a crime.), reh'g denied; Charlton v. State, 702 N.E.2d 1045, 1050 (Ind.1998) (finding evidence of a protective order relevant to show the hostile relationship that existed between the defendant and the victim in order to prove motive for the murder and not unduly prejudicial because of the other damaging evidence against the defendant). Accordingly, Wrinkles has failed to prove that an objection to such testimony would have been sustained if made. Further, in light of the fact that Wrinkles admitted shooting Debbie, Mark, and Natalie, he has failed to show prejudice. The post-conviction court did not err in concluding that counsel were not ineffective for failing to object to this testimony.