Opinion ID: 2061361
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Probative Value and Prejudice of Extrinsic Offenses

Text: Although the evidence sufficiently established that Gibbs committed the extrinsic offenses, the question remains as to whether the prosecutor made a strong enough showing of similarity required to admit the extrinsic offenses to prove identity. We must also judge whether the probative value of the extrinsic burglaries on the issue of identity outweighs its prejudicial impact on the defendant's character. The State argues that the burglaries were committed with a markedly similar modus operandi. The State maintains that they all occurred in the early evening, with the point of entry in an obscure place, and with alternative escape routes. The perpetrator ransacked the bedrooms and took pillowcases. The State claims the extrinsic burglaries establish Gibbs' identity as the burglar and prove his motive and intent. Because Gibbs' defense was that he was not the burglar, we will only address the use of the extrinsic burglaries to prove identity.
On March 19, 1983, between 8 p.m. and midnight, a burglar broke into Margaret Steger's home. The intruder entered by breaking the glass in the back door, reaching in, and unlocking the door. The burglar ransacked the bedroom and took a pillowcase. The record does not show that the thief opened other doors to create an alternative escape route. On April 3, 1983, between 4 p.m. and 9 p.m., a burglar cut the glass in the back door of William Taylor's home to gain entry. He took a pillowcase and ransacked the bedroom. On April 5, 1983, a burglar broke into Robert Scharnowske's residence. He forced open the front door, opened the porch door, and propped open the fence gates. The thief ransacked the bedroom but did not take a pillowcase. On June 9, 1983, between 3 p.m. and 11 p.m., an intruder broke into Dennis Crabtree's home. The burglar used a screwdriver to remove the wood frame around a rear window and then took out the window. Mrs. Crabtree testified, There were a few things ... thrown out of the drawers but [the house was] not ransacked. The burglar removed a television set but did not take a pillowcase. These are the first four charged burglaries. Although they have some elements in common, they are not unique. The perpetrator of these four burglaries used four different means of entry: breaking glass to open the back door, cutting glass to open the back door, forcing open the front door, and removing a rear window. In two of these burglaries, the thief did not take a pillowcase. In some of the burglaries, the intruder did not ransack the bedrooms and did not provide alternative means of escape. B. Extrinsic Burglaries. After the deputy prosecutor presented evidence on the nineteen charged burglaries, he sought to admit 39 extrinsic burglaries. The testimony on the extrinsic burglaries was more lengthy than the testimony on the charged burglaries. For the purpose of comparing the similarity of the extrinsic burglaries to the charged burglaries, the circumstances of a few of the extrinsic burglaries need to be described. On February 21, 1983, a burglar broke into Richard Bourke's residence. No one could establish the method of entry. The burglar ransacked the home, took a pillowcase, and opened an alternative escape route. On March 4, 1983, an intruder used a screwdriver to force the lock on Helen Mehagan's garage door. The burglar then kicked in the door leading from the garage to the kitchen. He ransacked the house and took a pillowcase. A thief broke into Judy Gaw's residence between 5 p.m. and midnight on March 12, 1983. He broke the front door frame and a glass pane. The perpetrator ransacked the bedroom and took a pillowcase, but he did not unlock the back door to provide an alternative escape route. On September 13, 1983, between 4:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m., a person entered Patricia Hester's home by breaking the glass in the back door, reaching in and opening the door. The burglar ransacked the house and unlocked the front door to provide an alternative escape route. The thief, however, did not take a pillowcase. Given the inherent similarities in almost all burglaries  the frequent early evening timing, the ransacking of the bedrooms, the breaking and entering in an obscure place  the modus operandi of these burglaries is not akin to the accused's signature. Rather, these burglaries are the mere repetition of the typical burglary. The prejudice resulting from the admission is patent. The State did not place Gibbs on notice that he would have to defend himself against these extrinsic offenses. The volume of testimony on the extrinsic burglaries also made it difficult for the jury to distinguish between the charged and the uncharged burglaries. Had the prosecutor wanted to admit evidence on these numerous extrinsic burglaries, he need only have charged Gibbs with the crimes. The record indicates the evidence was sufficient to convict Gibbs of both the charged burglaries and the extrinsic burglaries. To decide if the admission of the extrinsic offenses is harmless with regard to any of the convictions, we judge whether the jury's verdict was substantially swayed by the erroneous admission of the prejudicial evidence. Stwalley v. State (1989), Ind., 534 N.E.2d 229; Miller v. State (1982), Ind., 436 N.E.2d 1113. The admission of the extrinsic offenses may be considered harmless as to two sets of the burglary and theft convictions. The evidence on these crimes differs from that offered on others in that it connects the defendant so closely to the offense that is is difficult to imagine the jury reaching any decision other than guilty. In one burglary and theft, an eyewitness placed Gibbs at the scene with stolen property. That burglary occurred on September 23, 1983 at Helen Wallace's house. A neighbor of Wallace, Joseph Huffman, saw a car parked under a streetlight on the night of the burglary. He identified Gibbs' car as the one he saw that night. Huffman observed Gibbs pick up a pillowcase, put it in the car, and drive away. In another, Stephen Pitts was helping his mother-in-law remodel her house on October 3, 1983. She lived two houses to the east of him. Upon leaving, Pitts noticed a cream colored Olds 98 parked near his mother-in-law's house and a few houses down from his own home. Pitts had not seen the car in the neighborhood before. When he got home, he found his home broken into and a television, microwave oven, two diamond rings, and a stereo system taken. Pitts later identified the car as Gibbs. We affirm the four conviction arising out of these events.