Opinion ID: 2057473
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admissibility of Criminal Conduct

Text: The defendant next contends that the trial court erred by admitting in evidence over his objection State's Exhibits 7 and 9 evidencing a separate and distinct forgery offense. It is well settled that evidence of other crimes committed by a defendant, separate and distinct from the instant charge, is generally inadmissible to prove the guilt of the accused. Pharms v. State (1985), Ind., 476 N.E.2d 120. However, this Court recognizes a common scheme or plan exception, one branch of which permits proof of identity by showing the defendant committed another crime with identical modus operandi. Staton v. State (1988), Ind., 524 N.E.2d 6. This exception requires a strong showing that the methods used in the crimes are strikingly similar in a unique manner that indicates a common perpetrator. Id. at 8. See Penley v. State (1987), Ind., 506 N.E.2d 806. In order to prove the charged offense, the State was required to establish the identity of the defendant as the person who on May 8, 1985, uttered check number 621 drawn on the account of the Greater Vincennes Ministerial Association at Security Bank and Trust Company of Vincennes, Indiana, payable to Guaranteed Termite Pest Service and purported to be signed by Rev. H. Schaffer. In State's Exhibit 9, the defendant admitted unlawfully cashing two checks in Plymouth, Marshall County, Indiana. The first, State's Exhibit 7, consisted of check number 2088 drawn on the account of L & G Restaurant at Citizen's Bank of Michigan City, Indiana, payable to Michael VanWay in the sum of $366, purporting to be signed by Larry Johnson, dated May 11, 1985, and shown to be for pest control (termites). The second, State's Exhibit 4, consisted of check number 619 drawn on the account of the Greater Vincennes Ministerial Association, payable to Michael VanWay in the sum of $319, purporting to be signed by Rev. J. Schaffer, dated May 6, 1985, and written for painting church. The confession in State's Exhibit 9 referred to both forgeries, one of which, State's Exhibit 4, was unquestionably admissible. Admitting that State's Exhibit 7 is his forgery, the defendant argues that this does not automatically make it admissible against him in a prosecution for a separate forgery because of the absence of enough similarities. While noting that at trial the defendant unsuccessfully sought to have State's Exhibit 9 redacted to eliminate reference to the forgery shown by Exhibit 7, we conclude that the trial court's refusal was harmless under the circumstances. Because the prior forgery represented by State's Exhibit 4 was not excludable from evidence, we find that the cumulative effect of informing the jury of the additional prior forgery resulted in relatively minimal additional prejudice, which, in light of other evidence showing the defendant's guilt of the charged offense, does not justify a reversal of his conviction. We decline to reverse on this issue.