Opinion ID: 2078512
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Appellant's Employment

Text: When Martin was cross-examined, he stated that appellant worked for a gold shop and affirmed the prosecutor's comment that consumers can sell gold and silver in such a shop. Later, the State cross-examined appellant about his previous employment. Hudson testified that he worked part-time at an antique and gold shop. Hudson also testified that he had previously worked as a pathologist's assistant at a hospital and that he had been employed by a women's clinic. When the prosecutor asked whether he had access to drugs when he worked at the hospital and the clinic, defendant responded affirmatively. Evidence is relevant when it logically tends to prove a material fact or sheds any light on the guilt or innocence of the accused. Cox v. State (1985), Ind., 475 N.E.2d 664. Appellant's employment at a store which bought and sold gold items was relevant to his ability to sell the gold items stolen during the burglary. The prosecutor's questions were proper.