Opinion ID: 2078773
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Testimony of Co-Worker

Text: Taylor claims that much of the waitress' testimony was improperly admitted. First, he alleges that the waitress should not have been allowed to testify that Taylor had forced her into his automobile. The waitress testified, They had a gun on us at all times and they told us to get into the car. Taylor notes that he already had pleaded guilty to criminal confinement of the waitress and that the order in limine prohibited the prosecution from making any reference to that charge or his guilty plea. He further argues that the testimony was immaterial because the cook was the only victim of the charges at trial. There is every indication that the trial court's order in limine was effective at screening from the jury Taylor's plea of guilty. To recognize the granting of this order as a basis for prohibiting testimony by or about the waitress would have resulted in presenting the jury only fragmentary pieces of information about Taylor's conduct. We think the trial court was correct in permitting the waitress' testimony. The waitress corroborated the cook's testimony that she did not consent to Taylor's sexual acts and that a gun was used to facilitate the sex crimes. Therefore, this part of the waitress' testimony was relevant and properly admitted as evidence on the elements of force and use of a deadly weapon. Next, Taylor alleges that the trial court erred when it permitted the waitress to testify that Taylor ordered her to the front seat to perform sexual acts on Adams. Once again, Taylor alleges the testimony was immaterial and prejudicial, considering no charges concerning the waitress were before the jury. Testimony about Taylor's sex-related orders was relevant because it heightened the inference that he did commit rape and criminal deviate conduct. Furthermore, prejudicial utterances made during the commission of an offense are admissible. Edwards v. State (1984), Ind., 466 N.E.2d 452. Thus, Taylor can not claim error from the waitress' testimony concerning Taylor's order. Finally, Taylor claims the waitress should not have been permitted to testify as to why she jumped from the vehicle. She testified, I was in fear of my life. I was wanting to get help and that was the only way I could figure I was going to get help. I never thought about getting hurt jumping out of the car, I just wanted to get help for (the cook). Taylor claims this testimony merely revealed the waitress' state of mind and therefore was neither relevant nor admissible. However, this testimony indicates the waitress' motive for jumping out of a car traveling at 60 m.p.h. and supports the statements of both women that Taylor and Adams had a gun. Therefore, admission of this testimony was proper.