Opinion ID: 2078512
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Burglaries Contemplated by Co-defendant

Text: Martin's car was left behind at the crime scene when he fled in the victim's truck. When the police inventoried this car they found a green notebook in the glove compartment which had a map that provided directions to a house in the vicinity of the victim's house. During direct examination Martin identified State's exhibit 16 as his green notebook which contained written directions to the home of Bud Brownsome, who owned a car lot in Indianapolis. When they arrived at the Brownsome residence, they determined someone was home and thus proceeded to the Jean residence. During cross examination Martin testified that he had chosen the Brownsome house as the target of the burglary because he believed that anyone who owned a big business was likely to have money at home. The prosecutor then directed Martin's attention to another page in the green notebook which had the name Spencer written at the top of the page. Martin responded that directions to Spencer's house were on that page. Martin was asked about additional notations in his green notebook, such as Stucks Oil Company, in file cabinet, locked bottom door and cash door, Saturday night. Martin responded that someone told him about a place where they kept money and that he planned to commit a burglary if it sounded right. Testimony about criminal acts which a witness and the defendant may have contemplated is generally inadmissible. Wilson v. State (1982), Ind., 432 N.E.2d 30. The testimony in the case at bar, however, concerned criminal activity contemplated by the co-defendant, not by appellant. Appellant has not demonstrated how he was prejudiced by counsel's failure to object to testimony that the co-defendant had contemplated additional burglaries.