Opinion ID: 853247
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of Pierce's Behavior While Giving a Statement

Text: Pierce filed a motion in limine to exclude Detective Frazier's testimony that Pierce masturbated while giving his statements to police. The trial court denied the motion, stating that the evidence does have some tendency to impact upon the jury's consideration of his intent in entering that residence, the fact that in a discussion of the incident, he was engaged in a sexual act.... Pierce claims that this testimony violated Indiana Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b). Evidence Rule 404(b) provides, Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.... In assessing admissibility of 404(b) evidence the court must (1) determine that the evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is relevant to a matter at issue other than the defendant's propensity to commit the charged act and (2) balance the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect pursuant to Rule 403. Hicks v. State, 690 N.E.2d 215, 221 (Ind.1997). The relevance and balancing issues are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Thompson v. State, 690 N.E.2d 224, 233 (Ind.1997). Frazier's testimony fails both prongs of the test. First, it does not fall under an exception to Rule 404(b). Unlike the State's claim, evidence that Pierce masturbated during his confession does not establish that he intended to rape the victim when he broke into her home. There appears to be no reason to admit this evidence other than to establish that Pierce has a propensity for bizarre behavior. We also agree with Pierce that the testimony was substantially more prejudicial than probative. [2] Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion in admitting this evidence under a 404(b) analysis. However, Pierce's conduct while confessing is certainly relevant to an assessment of the confession's reliability and voluntariness. The trial court did not address this issue. We do not need to determine whether those considerations are sufficient to admit this testimony because [e]rrors in the admission or exclusion of evidence are to be disregarded as harmless error unless they affect the substantial rights of a party. Fleener v. State, 656 N.E.2d 1140, 1141 (Ind.1995); see also Ind. Trial Rule 61. In this case, there is significant, uncontested evidence of Pierce's guilt, including the victim's testimony that Pierce broke into her house, engaged in sexual deviate conduct, raped her, and robbed her. Pierce confessed to all of this. In light of this evidence, we cannot conclude that the erroneous admission of Frazier's testimony affected Pierce's substantial rights. It is not grounds for reversal.